New Venus Discovery ~ 35,000 Year Old Bigfoot?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 14th, 2009
The Venus of Hohle Fels, discovered in a cave in southern Germany, may be the oldest-known example of figurative art. The mammoth-ivory carving (allegedly) of a woman with grotesquely exaggerated sexual features is at least 35,000 years old, and may be 5,000 years older than the next-oldest example of so-called Venus figurines. Does it remind you of other hominology profiles?
Maria Malina, scientific employee, presents the photo of a carved ivory female figurine during its presentation in Tuebingen, southern Germany, Wednesday, May 13, 2009. The figurine, found in 2008 in a cave in Schelklingen, southern Germany is allegedly the world’s oldest reproduction of a human with an estimated age of at least 35,000 years.
A carved ivory female figurine is presented in Tuebingen, southern Germany, Wednesday, May 13, 2009. The figurine, found in 2008 in a cave in Schelklingen, southern Germany is allegedly the world’s oldest reproduction of a human with an estimated age of at least 35,000 years.
The 35,000 year old Venus of Hohle Fels is seen here from all sides. She’s holding up rather well for a woman of that age, I’d say.
What does the figurine have in common with other images we have come to know?
Maybe big-breasted women and Bigfoot - remember those Venuses found in cave art were big in a few areas of their bodies - stored fat reserves for the hard times. Perhaps men are still working with Neandertal and Cro-Magnon genes that still shout out some hard to ignore signals about selecting the best breeders with the best fat reserves?
Ms. Sheyla Hershey. Of course, the storage of the fat has to be real.
Everyone talks about Bigfoot breasts, of course, but aren’t we ignoring another rather significance part of the apparent Bigfoot body?
In 2007, I examined the never-before-discussed theory that the female “Patterson Bigfoot” shows steatopygia. By definition steatopygia is the extreme accumulation of fat on the buttocks.
“Steatopygia is believed to be an adaptive physiological feature for female humans living in hot environments, as it maximizes their bodies’ surface-area/volume ratio but keeps enough fat to produce hormones needed for menstruation….Women possessing these fat deposits can keep on reproducing through the unproductive seasons, thereby increasing their fitness. Others say that the steatopygia developed as a response to sexual selection.”
Below are some visuals supporting these thoughts about the October 20, 1967 filmed Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, California. These are archival anthropological photographs that demonstrate examples of steatopygia in Homo sapiens - contemporarily and through archaeologically discovered art. These also can be compared with the new find of the Venus of Hohle Fels.
Shown in ancient cave art:
For modern females among the Onge/Bushman, Hottentot, and Andamanese Negrito:
And with a Bushman male:
Finally, an apparent female Bigfoot (freeze frames of the buttocks occur in the last 1/3 of the footage here):
What do you think? Bigfoot breasts and steatopygia don’t seem to be that abnormal, after all, do they?
Perhaps hominology would do well to study more closely other angles of the Venus of Hohle Fels and Venus figurine research.
- Similar Phenomena:
Great thread, Loren.
This actually COULD be a representation of Ole Hairy. And fascinating history and pictures you give there. Good job there.
Good looking woman there, Ms. Hershey is. The Almighty certainly has been “good” to her.
To be honest, I think your theory about Steatopygia and Bigfoot certainly holds water.
Hopefully more evidence will surface.
Large breasts are, if I’m not mistaken, unusual in non-human primates.
I don’t see anything unusual about the new Venus idol, apart from a possible lack of pregnancy, but you show some other examples which also lack pregnancy.
“What does the figurine have in common with other images we have come to know?”
They were both made by primitive artists with little training.
I do believe the “Venus” is an example of a primitive human fertility symbol.
“Does it remind you of other hominology profiles?”
No.
Now do you say: thanks for playing? LOL
Shoot, that barely reminds me of a human. But I’d bet alien before I’d bet hairy hominoid.
And no, I don’t play the lottery either.
Dear Cryptomundo,
That ancient artifact may or may not be a representation of Bigfoot, but here are two that most definitely are; they could have been drawn by modern eyewitnesses/artists. They are 1100 years apart and represent two continents. One is Iranian, from 900 B.C. and the other, made from gold is Pre-columbian (see here).
besides the obvious abstract human form to the piece it pays a good deal of resemblance to a thanksgiving turkey in my opinion (probably only to me)
Very good post Loren and I think you have enough evidence to postulate a theory. It brings to mind to another idea I had some time ago about recessive genes. If you took the human traits of double muscles and extreme body hair you would come close to a possible Bigfoot.
The DNA evidence collected from Professor Meldrum’s Ontario screwboard supports such an idea. I wonder how many more comparisons with the traits of human there might be? My best,
Interesting, of course. How can it be any different when the functional elements of natural selection combine with the complex human instincts which contribute to our sense of aesthetics and attractiveness.
Though keep in mind that even without the storage of fat, the gluteus maximus (and the recursive spine) would still be a very pronounced feature in the human anatomy essential for our our unique form of bipedalism (no tail).
Dogu4- That is a very good point. The nature of bipedalism itself entails certain necessary morphological adaptations. The musculature of the legs, the set of the spine, the bones of the legs and feet, the position of the skull, and of course the development of the gluteus maximus, to name a few, are all going to undergo certain changes that are necessary for bipedalism to be possible. It seems that most fully bipedal animals are going to naturally develop similar traits, regardless of how closely those animals are genetically related. Just as fish and dolphins both have fins to cope with their environment, bipedal animals are going to exhibit certain similar characteristics simply because they work best. Well developed buttocks in Bigfoot would not surprise me in the least, and I would say it is pretty much a given.
I tend to think that steatopygia is an interesting hypothesis, but is perhaps not even necessary for explaining what we see in the PG footage. Bigfoot, as bipedal animals, are bound to have well developed gluteus maximus muscles, which will make the buttocks fairly prominent to begin with. In addition, I think we could expect to see differences between individuals as well. All one needs to do is look at humans to see the diversity that may be present in sasquatch. In human beings, you see people with flat bottoms, and those with very large ones in relation to overall body size. There are a myriad of shapes and sizes out there. Why could this not be true for a creature like Bigfoot as well?
I would also point out that great apes can have quite pronounced buttocks as well. The heavily muscled buttocks of gorillas, for instance, can be very pronounced look quite similar to what we see in the PG footage on the alleged sasquatch. If Bigfoot are anything at all like humans or gorillas, then the buttocks on Patty do not seem to be really all that abnormally large in relation to overall body size.
Steatopygia in sasquatch is an interesting angle, and could well have merit, however I am not entirely convinced that this is what we are seeing with Patty. It seems to me that the development of Patty’s buttocks falls within the norms of what we might expect for individual variation as well as what is seen on some gorillas.
Interesting line of enquiry, though.
It’s a stretch to imagine that the “Venus” figurines were intended to represent anything other than exaggerated, stylized images of pregnant human females. A type of “wishful thinking”, if you will, probably intended as amulets to ensure children. They may have been tokens carved by shamans, the women’s families or mates, or even by the women themselves. I don’t see any resemblance to “Patty”.
Really interesting correlation Loren. Fascinating the similarities we and ole’ hairy have in common when good people like yourself show us lay people the connections among these types of characteristics. Great story!
kittenz: if you see no resemblance to Patty, you haven’t seen the video. Watch as they turn the figurine around in the light; you’ll see what some interpret as an interpretation of a moving mound of muscle in the thigh of an undocumented hairy hominoid.
Others, of course, interpret it as mankind’s first representation of water bags incorporated into an ape costume. At least a few say they can see mankind’s first interpretation of a zipper.
Although now, of course, we can hope to put the lie to the presumption that the sasquatch isn’t anywhere in the fossil record.
Stop me, please….
m_m and dogu4:
I think it’s quite likely that there are a number of features in the sasquatch that one could expect from an animal that doesn’t experience a whole lot of evolutionary pressure to conform to type. Too Much Junk In The Trunk Disease could be one of a host of things. Variable facial features, hair length, and build seem to be others.
(And I can *spell* TMJITTD.)
As interesting as that line of speculation is, however (and I don’t think we need to speculate anything other than a similar, but distinct, motor mechanism), I’m not seeing an ape when I look at Venus.
Of course I never had a girlfriend who looked like that either. Whole ‘nuther thread.
Gotta say I tend to agree with kittenz. Wishful thinking on part of the artist. Though I find the steatopygia element facinating in respect of what it represents genitcally - a major change perhaps in the last 30,000 years in the European genotype (to be expected, but still quite surprising).
When I look at “Patty”, what I see is a large male biped of the species Homo sapiens with (although it is not physically apparent in the video) its tongue firmly in its cheek
.
Seriously though, even if you buy that “Patty” is a real Bigfoot and not a hoax, it’s much differently proportioned than the Venus figurines.
Well, THIS one immediately put me in mind of a (considerably heavier, less-tidied-and-turned-out…and headless) ancestress of the redoubtable bounty huntress Beth Smith Chapman, mate of ‘Dog’. Image-search her if you don’t already know what she looks like! However, ever since I saw several views of scientific illustrations of various animal BRAINS, I’ve thought that the shape of them, seen (dorsal view, olfactory bulb at top, medulla oblongata at bottom), looked awf’ly reminiscent of some other ‘caveman venuses’: Olfactory bulb as head, o. tract as neck, cerebral hemisphere split by epiphysis as breasts, cerebellum as abdomen, ventricle IV as mons pubis, and medulla oblongata as legs. Dorsal views also have similarities in certain species. BTW, a uterus + fallopian tubes has a certain similarity to the heads of horned ruminants. As for the steatopygia: Read Hallet & Pelle’s PYGMY KITABU and you’ll find big support for the idea of ancient types San/’Bushman’ race having been in Paleolithic Europe!
Now I’m going to have Sir Mix-a-Lot stuck in my head again!
I don’t know if this new carved figurine represents a Bigfoot. But I’m not that sure it represents a Homo sapiens, either.
I would like to point you guys to the distinct criss-cross lines carved in the arms of the figurine. There are also some lines around the breasts. Are these lines supposed to represent body hair?
Baby Got Back…
red_pill_junkie,
Those lines are probably intended to represent ceremonial painting or tattoos.
I think it’s possible that the lines on various parts of the figurine could also represent clothing. Surely with the human penchant for decorating ourselves and our surroundings, clothing decorations such as fringes, beading, burning, etc, must have been around for millennia.