Stunning is the word!

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 897216.ece

Fabulous discovery, love stuff like this...BUT....



This is just wrong and throws the whole article out as inaccurate for me. Idolising the "Goddess" has been around much longer, and iconography like this is littered throughout prehistoric and classical archaeology (and beyond). It might be the first in India but I sincerely doubt it. However I have no supporting documentation to hand, so I wouldn't state that with any certainty, but Hinduism (which is oft cited as the "oldest living religion") has many Goddesses so I'd be surprised if idols of them didn't exist which dated back further than 2300 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines

_________________


Listen and in thine heart engrave my words; Keep closed thine eye and ear 'gainst prejudice;
Of others the example fear; think always for thyself: Consult, deliberate, and freely choose.
Let fools act aimlessly and without cause. Thou shouldst, in the present, contemplate the future.

(The Golden Verses of Pythagoras - D'Olivet)

_________________


~ PM ME ANYTIME ALWAYS GLAD TO HELP ~



~ It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live ~

what it really says is this "The first-ever ‘Mother Goddess' image carved in sandstone rock — representing the earliest perception of idolising woman as Goddess dating back to 3 Century BC " -not that its the oldest goddess idol ever found, but the oldest goddess image carved in sandstone rock.

I'm also not sure you're interpreting the 2nd part right, it's a bit ambigous. that it is representing the earliest perception does not necessarily mean that the artifact itself is actually the earliest one found. it doesn't say it's the earliest goddess idol. it could be read as: the preception of woman as goddes is early, and this image is one representation of that perception.

further down it also clearly says "that such an early image of Mother Goddess had not been found so far in entire South India in stone media."

questioning is good, but so is also reading carefully to avoid misunderstandings.

Whilst I appreciate your efforts to educate me as to the way you read the article, it is unnecessary

The title of the article is: "Earliest Image of Mother Goddess found". This is a false statement and is immediately mis-leading.

If the article wanted to emphasize and push forward the views as you have percieved them, it should have done so. This is not an academic article admittedly - but in a way that makes it even more important, for a general readership who have no knowledge or experience in the field of archaeology, to make sure the correct points are highlighted and made clear.

I have given my reasons already for the part I quoted previously, but I will reiterate: Proof of a "perception" is not possible, just because you haven't found an older idol it doesn't mean they didn't exist. And anyway it's incorrect, the earliest "perceptions" exist in the form of oral creationist stories and mythology, such as the Vedas.

_________________


Listen and in thine heart engrave my words; Keep closed thine eye and ear 'gainst prejudice;
Of others the example fear; think always for thyself: Consult, deliberate, and freely choose.
Let fools act aimlessly and without cause. Thou shouldst, in the present, contemplate the future.

(The Golden Verses of Pythagoras - D'Olivet)