|
Post by GK Sierra on Oct 22, 2012 19:59:38 GMT
Things that don't hurt Jones: Time Pointy objects I think it's time to try fire. I think Antimony knows enough not to trifle with Jones, although barging into her office and demanding a life history is pretty confrontational. If Jones isn't even phased by the passage of time itself then I'd say fire is probably on the list too. It would be interesting, though, to see Tom devote his next full page panel to Annie attempting to roast her in a fit of rage and Jones walking through it like the Terminator, grim expression still firmly affixed.
|
|
krael
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by krael on Oct 22, 2012 20:00:50 GMT
things that hurt Jones: -comments on her weight
|
|
|
Post by foresterr on Oct 22, 2012 20:10:21 GMT
Unlikely. Tom has stated that Jones is something new, that he has made. Citations forthcoming. Awh, so that means we should all stop theorizing? It would be futile to continue with our guesses if Jones's own being is something Tom has created on his own and that exists nowhere else in fiction, mythology, history, etc. Like Tom's Gol-Shogeg. He must've came up with that creature on his own. Nothing says Tom couldn't have done a little mix'n'match (that counts as creation in my book, otherwise, you know, everything has been done already ) so theorizing based on various mythological and historical themes is not off the book. It's still possible to guess quite a bit that way, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Georgie L on Oct 22, 2012 20:17:34 GMT
It seems Jones needs to "move on" either after or before she's discovered. It seems she's leaning towards before in recent decades, human failings being what they are. The question that comes to mind to me is - now that Annie has "asked the question" - does she need to move on now? Is the acceptance of the Court for odd people giver her perpetual sanctuary? Do the others (Renyard, Ys) - *really* know what she is, or do they just think she's an enigma and leave it at that? I think that the court officials already all know what she is and picked her specifically because of that, and so she is basically always safe there. There is no magic causing her to leave once others know after all, just idiots threatening her enough for her to not think it's worth staying. The other thing is possibly a no, as to the best of there abilities chuckles and rey had apparently explained 'more or less' (just after her return from the forest she said she was told) what Jones is and yet Coyote's revelation made Annie doubt it enough to ask Jones in an angry huff.
|
|
|
Post by Mitth'raw'nuruodo on Oct 22, 2012 21:12:21 GMT
Awh, so that means we should all stop theorizing? It would be futile to continue with our guesses if Jones's own being is something Tom has created on his own and that exists nowhere else in fiction, mythology, history, etc. Like Tom's Gol-Shogeg. He must've came up with that creature on his own. Nothing says Tom couldn't have done a little mix'n'match (that counts as creation in my book, otherwise, you know, everything has been done already ) so theorizing based on various mythological and historical themes is not off the book. It's still possible to guess quite a bit that way, I think. Yea verily, however, to the assertion that Jones is known and stated being, namely a Galatea, is unlikely. This does not mean you should not guess. I have only commented on one theory, and in the past few strips have not commented at all. There is insufficient data to be making any sort of logical guesses at this point.
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Oct 22, 2012 21:16:32 GMT
There is insufficient data to be making any sort of logical guesses at this point. Yeah, plus we've been mostly talking about the historical stuff in the strip. I wonder how many times Jones has had to uproot herself to move on to a new area - how many times she's been able to do that safely, and how many she's been forced to leave? Countless times probably. Although she stayed in the US from the 17th century to the early 20th, then went to England, and joined the court sometime between the 1930's and 1970's. Depending on how much of a jump Tom takes with Wenesdays strip, we'll either be in the Dark Ages (Tom will probably skip that), the waning days of the Roman Empire ( 2nd and 3rd centuries AD), or somewhere in the 7th to 9th century BC. Also, I had a thought, I wonder if the next strip would be Pompeii getting covered in ash by Vesuvius? A town getting destroyed like that could be a great cover for her. The problem would be hiding from those who would recognize her.
|
|
|
Post by seaofalchemy on Oct 22, 2012 22:11:00 GMT
Awh, so that means we should all stop theorizing? It would be futile to continue with our guesses if Jones's own being is something Tom has created on his own and that exists nowhere else in fiction, mythology, history, etc. Like Tom's Gol-Shogeg. He must've came up with that creature on his own. Nothing says Tom couldn't have done a little mix'n'match (that counts as creation in my book, otherwise, you know, everything has been done already ;) ) so theorizing based on various mythological and historical themes is not off the book. It's still possible to guess quite a bit that way, I think. So, there's still a slight chance that Jones may be an golem-clone from an alien planet, who travels through time and space, who knows alchemy, who simultaneously is a non-blood-lusting vampire, AND has created Horcruxes of herself? Hehehe, just mashing up and "mix'n'matching" theories!
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 22, 2012 22:34:25 GMT
Yea verily, however, to the assertion that Jones is known and stated being, namely a Galatea, is unlikely. This does not mean you should not guess. I have only commented on one theory, and in the past few strips have not commented at all. There is insufficient data to be making any sort of logical guesses at this point. Mr. Siddell did say that Jones was an original character of his own creation or words to that effect. Question: Wouldn't that description also apply to Basil? True, it is difficult to make predictions about the plot of a fantasy comic where magic exists, but the format is one of an unfolding narrative and that means foreshadowing happens. There are a number of facts known about Jones though not enough to eliminate all but one possibility (re: Jones facts thread) although the association of Jones with the venus figure in the 3rd treatise comes close because all of the other character representations have been accounted for. There are enigmatic references but these can all be traced back to fertility goddesses of some sort, and though the linkage with reference to an eye travels through mythology that isn't commonly taught and that makes some uncomfortable. Does that make it less likely to be accurate? What competing theory explains Jones' weight and resistance to damage and association with fertility goddesses as well as the Galatea theory? If new data is forthcoming I will revise my expectations and if I am proved wrong then I will be wrong. But until that time I respectfully stand behind my original analysis of the data, admiral. ;D
|
|
|
Post by seaofalchemy on Oct 22, 2012 22:55:15 GMT
What competing theory explains Jones' weight and resistance to damage and association with fertility goddesses as well as the Galatea theory? Wait. Am I missing something? Where does it indicate that Jones is fertile or has had children? Or do you mean "fertile" in the sense that she seems to attract men? Another theory that might compete with the Galatea theory is the Alchemist theory; Jones could be an alchemist. She can change her body's composition which includes her weight. She can't necessarily resist damage, but she can absorb and lessen the damage by any forces upon her. Jones appears to be immortal. Alchemists, when achieved The Philosopher's Stone (note: the chapter title, "The Stone"), can regain immortality. Is Galatea immortal? However, I can see how Galateas can relate to "The Stone," since she is represented by many sculptures or statues. But most representations of Galatea are made from ivory and not stone. If new data is forthcoming I will revise my expectations and if I am proved wrong then I will be wrong. But until that time I respectfully stand behind my original analysis of the data, admiral. ;D Agreed! :)
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 22, 2012 23:19:28 GMT
Where does it indicate that Jones is fertile or has had children? Or do you mean "fertile" in the sense that she seems to attract men? She does attract men. And she seems to have a history of taking good care of children, while dressing and acting like an idealized woman. And that venus figure in the treatise is probably her. But it was formspring'd that Jones doesn't have any children. Odd that someone associated with fertility goddesses wouldn't have kids, yes? ...unless maybe she couldn't. Now in some versions of the myth Galatea had kids, but Jones may have adopted some or her original sculptor (or whatever) may have been an instant family, or they could've adopted if Jones was unable. Or maybe she's stone-based in this version and can't. Another theory that might compete with the Galatea theory is the Alchemist theory; Jones could be an alchemist. She can change her body's composition which includes her weight. She can't necessarily resist damage, but she can absorb and lessen the damage by any forces upon her. I can't rule something like that out but it doesn't explain the fertility references (and alchemy and nature religion is sort of a funny mix) or why when it would be useful to be lighter she stays heavy and goes for a swim instead of using a pier... It's not impossible but there would have to be additional things happening to explain those things. Also, I think we must look for a unique origin for Jones. If there was a species or career path plus religion that could make Jonses then I think it would be easier for characters in the comic to explain what she is.
|
|
|
Post by seaofalchemy on Oct 23, 2012 0:25:02 GMT
Where does it indicate that Jones is fertile or has had children? Or do you mean "fertile" in the sense that she seems to attract men? She does attract men. And she seems to have a history of taking good care of children, while dressing and acting like an idealized woman. And that venus figure in the treatise is probably her. But it was formspring'd that Jones doesn't have any children. Odd that someone associated with fertility goddesses wouldn't have kids, yes? ...unless maybe she couldn't. Now in some versions of the myth Galatea had kids, but Jones may have adopted some or her original sculptor (or whatever) may have been an instant family, or they could've adopted if Jones was unable. Or maybe she's stone-based in this version and can't. Another theory that might compete with the Galatea theory is the Alchemist theory; Jones could be an alchemist. She can change her body's composition which includes her weight. She can't necessarily resist damage, but she can absorb and lessen the damage by any forces upon her. I can't rule something like that out but it doesn't explain the fertility references (and alchemy and nature religion is sort of a funny mix) or why when it would be useful to be lighter she stays heavy and goes for a swim instead of using a pier... It's not impossible but there would have to be additional things happening to explain those things. Also, I think we must look for a unique origin for Jones. If there was a species or career path plus religion that could make Jonses then I think it would be easier for characters in the comic to explain what she is. I think the "fertility" aspect could be scratched off of both our theories. She doesn't exactly take care of children and isn't exactly motherly; she just teaches children. She was a governess of Samuel Jackson and governesses are unlike nannies or baby-sitters; they are home-school teachers, for the lack of a better word. Also, like you said, Jones doesn't have children. Alchemy has nothing to do with fertility (at least from what I know), so my theory of Jones as an alchemist doesn't connect to fertility. However, alchemists recreate things from other things. Almost like "making an offspring." An alchemist can bring life to an object, which essentially, is like a mother "bringing life" to her children/offspring. Furthermore, if we look at Jones's other abilities such as super strength ( here and here) and her quick fighting abilities ( here, here, and here), her supernatual abilities can be associated with alchemists: changing the composition of their bodies to inflict major damage onto any surface as well as slowing down time to react quicker. (It has been argued that alchemy is closely associated with quantum physics, magic, and chemistry.) Where does it say that Galatea has super-strength or fighting abilities? All I can think of is the character of Galatea from the DC Comics. If Jones is represented by Galatea, she would need to have a creator represented by Pygmalion. Someone theorized that Jones was a creation by Diego (see quotes!), a recreation of Jeanne, who Diego fell in love with (and Pygmalion fell in love with Galatea; Jones is to Galatea as Diego is to Pygmalion). However, it appears that Jones has been long existing and immortal before Diego's time, which does not prove that Diego created Jones in the image of Jeanne. Although I am obsessed with the alchemist theory, I am liking your Galatea theory! :)
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 23, 2012 1:45:33 GMT
I think the "fertility" aspect could be scratched off of both our theories. I guess it depends on what you mean by fertility. I don't mean Jones herself has great childbearing potential. But Jones does promote romance!Where does it say that Galatea has super-strength or fighting abilities? All I can think of is the character of Galatea from the DC Comics. As far as I know the myths are silent on Galatea being abnormal in any way (except for being attractive and maybe an ideal woman) but I would think that being a magical woman made from stone/ivory/bronze/whatever would be sufficient explanation in itself for some above-average strength in the four-color universe! As for fighting skills, she's been around for a good while. If Jones is represented by Galatea, she would need to have a creator represented by Pygmalion. Yep and a helpful goddess, though in the Hathor-icon sub-theory she wouldn't necessarily need a Pygmalion of any importance. Although I am obsessed with the alchemist theory, I am liking your Galatea theory! :) I like it too, and I suppose that the reason I think Jones is heavy and strong and tough is through a similar mechanism to your alchemy theory... she retains some traits of her base material which I suppose is how alchemists would make themselves tougher and stronger. :D
|
|
|
Post by lawnifer on Oct 23, 2012 3:50:47 GMT
Jones demonstrating her indestructibility and badassitude since the Middle Ages. Speaking about Jonesy's durability (and chapter title) do you guys remember when Coyote said "it causes him not see a stone when it is just a stone. Instead, his diseased eye sees a weapon. A symbol. The shape of a woman. A spark of inspiration!" Maybe Jones is a sculpture after all? And maybe Coyote was referring to her, indirectly. Perhaps. ETA: I forgot where I read this, but someone else mentioned the possibility that Jones might be the Venus of Willendorf (or the equivalent) that was depicted in the Third Treatise. Could we be dealing with Pygmalion's statue or maybe the their daughter Metharme. Update: I didn't know the statue had a name, Galatea , so I guess I was stating the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by skythorn on Oct 23, 2012 5:15:32 GMT
I had a quick scan, and could not see that it had been mentioned before - could Jones be the observer of the first particle formed from the big bang? Quantum Theory speaks of the need to observe a particle for it to be both a wave and a particle? www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGcJones is the wandering eye letting the universe know it's being observed? *edit* yes, Quantum Theory does not quite reflect what I said above, but it's not wrong, it's just not right either.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 23, 2012 6:37:05 GMT
Welcome to the forums, new persons! Could we be dealing with Pygmalion's statue or maybe the their daughter Metharme. Update: I didn't know the statue had a name, Galatea , so I guess I was stating the obvious. Not really your fault... Galatea is actually a late addition to the myths... I believe that in the early ones she goes unnamed. ;D I am not sure if anyone's suggested that Jones might be a descendant of Galatea so that might be a new one.
|
|
|
Post by rafk on Oct 23, 2012 6:40:24 GMT
Still sure that "Wandering Eye" is Jones' Native American name which she was using when she first met Coyote (off-screen, after she arrived in the New World) and that it has nothing to do with her own origins.
|
|
|
Post by dailenna on Oct 23, 2012 6:48:38 GMT
There are vague mentions of her being around at the start of the world, skythorn, but I haven't seen any serious theories I sent this to a friend yesterday and figured I may post it here, since it's more theorising (in response to her idea that Jones may be a golem) : Yeah, but Tom's stated on Formspring that she's something of his own creation. Which could be a golem if he meant like he moulded her, but I think he means something that he's made up. Which is part of why I think people trying to guess is a little redundant [as Mitth'raw'nuruodo said above]. Still, it's fun I think that if it wasn't something Tom had made up, golem would totally be right. I could see her working with the script "Do no harm. Observe." - or something like that. Somewhere, either on formspring or in the comments beneath the pages, Tom stated that in her free time, Jones liked to observe things. That seems like such a key part of her character to me - she's very much a side character. But observing isn't all she does, so don't take my golem script too seriously. 'Sides, I don't think she's actually a golem - that just seems like the closest I can come to guessing without more information.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Oct 23, 2012 7:58:38 GMT
I had a quick scan, and could not see that it had been mentioned before - could Jones be the observer of the first particle formed from the big bang? Quantum Theory speaks of the need to observe a particle for it to be both a wave and a particle? www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGcJones is the wandering eye letting the universe know it's being observed? *edit* yes, Quantum Theory does not quite reflect what I said above, but it's not wrong, it's just not right either. That would raise the question of who she was observing for. Or perhaps she's the universe observing itself, but then again, so are we. Quantum Theory is pretty alien to me, all the times I've tried to wrap my noodle around it I just end up with a headache. "Jones" the physical entity couldn't have existed until about 377,000 years after the big bang, when recombination allowed the four fundamental forces to create nuclei for hydrogen and helium atoms, and then she wouldn't have anyone to talk to for hundreds of millions of years, perhaps more, becoming more complex as time progressed. Either way I am totally going with this explanation for Jonesy until the actual truth is revealed and shatters our minds.
|
|
alexh
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by alexh on Oct 23, 2012 8:09:27 GMT
I was just thinking, if Jones is the perfect example of a myth created by man, then she couldn't exist before man. Some food for thought.
|
|
rahel
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by rahel on Oct 23, 2012 8:50:36 GMT
Long time reader, finally registered to address a rather minor point, but one that's close to my heart: That's not the Venus of Willendorf. It appears to be a generalized paleolithic figurine, thinner than the Venus of Willendorf, differently shaped, and with her hands unusually positioned at her sides instead of on her breasts or in front. The closest I've managed to find is this one: www.universitadelledonne.it/immagini/statuetteParabita.JPGIt's also worth noting that the interpretation as fertility godesses is a common modern one, but not actually based on any facts.
|
|
alexh
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by alexh on Oct 23, 2012 11:00:53 GMT
That's not the Venus of Willendorf. It appears to be a generalized paleolithic figurine, thinner than the Venus of Willendorf, differently shaped, and with her hands unusually positioned at her sides instead of on her breasts or in front. The closest I've managed to find is this one: www.universitadelledonne.it/immagini/statuetteParabita.JPGIt's also worth noting that the interpretation as fertility godesses is a common modern one, but not actually based on any facts. Yeah, you're probably right. Still makes me wonder what relevance that thing actually has, though. I mean, it's there for a reason, right? If I'm remembering correctly, the Venus didn't have feet or a way to stand on it's own. It's likely that it was meant to be held, which gave it some religious significance. But again, that's all speculation, like it being for fertility (edit: which was, by the way, because of it's overly-large private bits). I mean, even its name was given recently. Whatever it used to be called, we've got no idea.
|
|
krael
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by krael on Oct 23, 2012 11:44:37 GMT
I had a quick scan, and could not see that it had been mentioned before - could Jones be the observer of the first particle formed from the big bang? Quantum Theory speaks of the need to observe a particle for it to be both a wave and a particle? www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGcJones is the wandering eye letting the universe know it's being observed? *edit* yes, Quantum Theory does not quite reflect what I said above, but it's not wrong, it's just not right either. Quantum mechanics speaks of no such thing, and what you just said above was, indeed, very wrong. QM is merely a mathematical framework that happens to describe several physical effects at the nanoscale very well. And because our brains are hardwired to deal with everyday 'classical' physics, QM comes over a bit counterintuitive and abstract, leading to all sorts of vague comments lik ethe above. I don't mean to snap, but saying you weren't wrong was too much. For imformative purposes: "It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer." - Quantum Mechanics Non-Relativistic Theory, Third Edition: Volume 3 i.e. when QM mentions 'observing', no intelligent being whatsoever is required. Particle A feeling the field of particle B is more than enough.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 23, 2012 11:54:52 GMT
Welcome to the forums, Rahel! It appears to be a generalized paleolithic figurine, thinner than the Venus of Willendorf, differently shaped, and with her hands unusually positioned at her sides instead of on her breasts or in front. Since Mr. Siddell usually goes to a lot of trouble with details like this I had interpreted the differences as representing a transitional figure, but I freely admit I am not expert. It's also worth noting that the interpretation as fertility godesses is a common modern one, but not actually based on any facts. Hey, as long as there is a connection with fertility my theory about Jones stands on firm ground, and I think both the generic venus figures and the particular one do tend to make one think in that direction. I do know about fired-clay baby figures from the native Americans of the southwest (I own one) that have some similarities but even if it had no female sex characteristics I would tend to equate that with a fertility totem (perhaps wrongly). But I am very curious about possible alternate explanations for the venus figures as goddesses or fertility totems. The notion that some may have been naturally carved plays into one particular dude's speculation that Jones is an animated statue but one that lacks a sculptor... I've read a tiny bit about the faceless self-representation theory and the steatopygia theory and I am not a fan. Do you know of any others?
|
|
|
Post by AluK on Oct 23, 2012 12:21:45 GMT
Edit 2: Not sure how much Tom knows about armor, but the man's use of a Norman helmet also supports the 'no later than the 14th century' claim legion makes. Assuming Tom didn't just pick a random, iconic helmet to ensure we knew this was somewhere in the middle ages. I've learnt that the default assumption in these cases should always be "Tom knows a lot about it". The guy does his research before doing anything.
|
|
quoodle
Full Member
Just a man on a planet
Posts: 168
|
Post by quoodle on Oct 23, 2012 13:37:34 GMT
Perhaps the "fertility" aspect does not suggest she's the "cause" - that is she's a sign of fertility, (i.e. a god or a totem) but the result of fertility.
And a totem of clay (in the third treatise) is a further clue.
Jones is perhaps the decedent of an earth elemental. (Like Annie is of a Fire elemental). The result being, she is heavy, like the earth (see the chapter title) - see the "thud" when hit by a pike.
Her prowess with a sword (or against a sword) always struck me as perhaps manipulating gravity - which might fit in with such a person.
She is "The Stone" - immovable (in the physical sense, and in the emotional sense) and enduring.
|
|
|
Post by seaofalchemy on Oct 24, 2012 0:30:13 GMT
I was talking to my cousin about Gunnerkrigg Court, about the current mystery of Jones's being, and her true identity. My cousin, a huge fan of Dr. Who, joked and said, “Maybe Jones is associated with Dr. Who.” I chuckled.
|
|
|
Post by Mitth'raw'nuruodo on Oct 24, 2012 2:00:39 GMT
If new data is forthcoming I will revise my expectations and if I am proved wrong then I will be wrong. But until that time I respectfully stand behind my original analysis of the data, admiral. ;D Good, remember, I do not punish being incorrect, only refusing to admit that you are wrong and refusing to change. Keep that in mind and we shall have... no problems. Carry on Captain.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Oct 24, 2012 10:44:08 GMT
I was talking to my cousin about Gunnerkrigg Court, about the current mystery of Jones's being, and her true identity. My cousin, a huge fan of Dr. Who, joked and said, “Maybe Jones is associated with Dr. Who.” I chuckled. Since Tom said once that he dislikes "Docrot Who", probably not.
|
|
|
Post by Freederick on Oct 24, 2012 11:23:58 GMT
Not only is the knight in the picture wearing a Norman helmet, but he has a kite-shaped shield that suggests the latter half of the 11th century. Maybe this is set during the First Crusade, which was at the end of that century. The knight appears to be no later than the 13th; probably earlier, based on form of shield and lack of plate protection at joints, but he could be a poor knight using basic equipment*. The arms on the shield are unmistakably Templar Order. At that point in time, witch-hunts were some 200 years in the future. Heretic-hunts were in full swing, but nobody here is accusing Jones of heresy, explicitly. What really gets my goat, though, is that a knight, and a Templar, should be getting his orders from what appears to be peasant rabble. This is totally wrong---he would outrank the other persons in that crowd so much they would be fawning on him, both lay commoners and rustic clerics. For those of you unfamiliar with the culture, think of the consequences if a Japanese peasant tried to boss around a samurai official---same thing here, except that the Templar has ecclesiastical rank as well. Also, being a knight of the Temple, he would be a literate and world-traveled man, quite used to foreign strangeness. Taking into account the (mostly religious) wisdom of the day, he would most likely connect Jones to a). the legend of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Jew, popular in that day; b) scriptural accounts of invulnerability such as the story of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadrach,_Meshach,_and_Abednego; and c) the mythical story of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles'_heel, if he were literate enough. At any rate, the first explanation an early medieval learned person would think of would likely be the idea of miraculous, rather than infernal power. Things only changed at the very tail end of the Middle Ages, which is clearly not the milieu here. *ed: Scratch that, a Templar's armor is provided by the Order, and was generally plain but of good quality. So 12th century at most.Just for the benefit of any new persons, I've long speculated that Jones is a Galatea. And yeah, there were several small references in the last chapter that have been making me smile about that speculation... I am trying to suppress the urge to repost it in every thread... ;D I totally support that speculation. But it was formspring'd that Jones doesn't have any children. Odd that someone associated with fertility goddesses wouldn't have kids, yes? ...unless maybe she couldn't. If the, ahem, physical aspect of her virginity is as impenetrable as her skin, no wonder she has no children of her own. ;D
|
|
rahel
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by rahel on Oct 24, 2012 14:49:36 GMT
Welcome to the forums, Rahel! Thank you! But I am very curious about possible alternate explanations for the venus figures as goddesses or fertility totems. The notion that some may have been naturally carved plays into one particular dude's speculation that Jones is an animated statue but one that lacks a sculptor... I've read a tiny bit about the faceless self-representation theory and the steatopygia theory and I am not a fan. Do you know of any others? Well, I must say that I'm not in love with any of the existing theories. Besides the two you've mentioned, there's the one of venus-figurines-as-paleolithic-porn, and of protective birth icons/totems. Each has its problems (and so does the fertility theory - fertility tends to be something agricultural societies obsess about, not hunter-gatherers). On the other hand, this gives Tom quite a bit of artistic freedom, which is not a bad thing.
|
|