Cavemen liked big butts and archaeologists cannot lie

posted at 8:59 pm on March 11, 2007 by Allahpundit

Mark my words, they’re going to write this into the show as a running gag and, just like that, an already bad idea will become simply insufferable.

Ancient carvings depicting the female form 15,000 years ago reveal that prehistoric women were revered for their curvaceous bodies and prominent buttocks…

Historians claim that the carvings – found at a site in Poland – reveal how curvy bottoms were regarded as the most attractive physical trait for women in Stone Age Europe…

Experts said a well-presented bottom was a sign of wealth, health and a good diet.

They also suggested she would be a successful mother, able to produce lots of children and sent out a message to other men that her partner was a strong and successful hunter – making him more attractive to other women.

Presumably the rapid (d)evolution towards slimmer forms is explained in terms of civilization = more food = less prestige for women with access to food + more concerns about curvy figures signalling bad health (i.e., obesity). Good news, though: if the global warming crowd is right, things should start breaking back in favor of the zaftig by around 2080.

As for the cavemen, tastes may change but objectification stays heart-achingly the same:

The flat carvings were fashioned out of flint, bone, ivory and tooth.

They depict the profile of women minus their heads – strongly suggesting that cavemen were more interested in the shape of the body than the way a female looked.

Exit question tangent: I’ve got nowhere else to put this, so here you go. Despair.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Not that it really matters but…

A single example of 15,000 year old carvings from an isolated area is proof of this…how?

SnakeintheGrass on March 11, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Contest – how many ways to name an arse? In the article:

diminutive derriere, posterior, buttocks, behinds, etc. Answer the call.

AP, the use of the word ‘zaftig’ still has me in stitches. Which part of your family is the witty one? Or both?

And to associate any Rosie mini-article with diminutive derrieres? Precious!

Entelechy on March 11, 2007 at 9:08 PM

The ever-riveting Rosie

After we get the aliens and sedition act re-instated, we have to do something about mis-use of clever word play in print.

They do mean “riveting” in the train-wreck sense of the word, don’t they?

Experts said a well-presented bottom was a sign of wealth, health and a good diet.

Wow. We guys haven’t changed since forever, apparently. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with it, right? Hmmm? Rrrriveting.

TexasDan on March 11, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Maybe they were just lousy artists.

reaganaut on March 11, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Cavemen didn’t exist.

Nonfactor on March 11, 2007 at 9:16 PM

They depict the profile of women minus their heads – strongly suggesting that cavemen were more interested in the shape of the body than the way a female looked.

Oh for crying out loud. This guy is obviously not married. The cave tagger simply was playing out a fantasy he wished for his mother in law.

- The Cat

MirCat on March 11, 2007 at 9:17 PM

OT but still stupid — Drudge just compared your boss to Captain Kangaroo.

j.d. on March 11, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Maybe in Poland this is news, but archaeologists have been pulling fertility goddess figurines out of the ground forever – all of which were depicted with much junk in the trunk.

I have put a lot of thought into this, and it seems that the preference towards a reduced pooper has only come about over the course of the last 100 years or so.

Sally Rand, anyone?

Meh … I think the Daily Express just wanted another reason to post a pic of Kylie’s butt (as if anyone needs a REASON to do that).

yo on March 11, 2007 at 9:20 PM

I got links. Oh yeah, I got links.
But they’re more an AoSHQ sorta thing

billy on March 11, 2007 at 9:26 PM

I just imagine cavemen dancing around the fire singing:

I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can’t deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
‘Cause you notice that butt was stuffed

RedinBlueCounty on March 11, 2007 at 9:32 PM

A friend told me recently, and I haven’t checked this out yet, that archaeologists have concluded from the size of the hands in the cave paintings that the painters were most likely pubescent boys. Hence the fixation on voluptuous female bods.

Hey, works for me.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 11, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Exit question tangent: I’ve got nowhere else to put this, so here you go. Despair.

Thanks for leaving my weekend with that image……… it’s because of all my sarcasm, isn’t it……..

Was the thought of Rosie training her feet to hold a microphone when she was upside down over the top….

Come on, where’s the love……..

PinkyBigglesworth on March 11, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Oy.

amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Despair

Rosie O’Donnell
has a big butt.
It is huge
s w o l l e n
ginormous
And yet i am unattracted
Am I not a man?
She is a Venus
yet I am repulsed.
What flaw exists
within myself
that I cannot appreciate
the hugeness of her ass?
I would blame Bush
but then I realize
the problem is that
her butt is on her neck.

And despair fades.

Coming next: the interpretive dance featuring a song by Tool and a fishbowl full of pasta.

It’s all symbolic ‘n stuff.

Where’s my grant?

TABoLK on March 11, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Hmphf.
My poetry featured the goofy spacing that proper polemic art should have. But the petit-bourgeoise tastes of the comment system has stripped my prentious art of its impact.

For this I blame Bush.

TABoLK on March 11, 2007 at 11:01 PM

Not only (as yo has already pointed out) are these statues old news, but it’s downright stupid to assume that the represent an ideal of the female form. The evidence found so far suggests that these statues were ritual fertility symbols, not caveman porn.

jic on March 11, 2007 at 11:14 PM

Exit question tangent: I’ve got nowhere else to put this, so here you go. Despair.

But that’s free material Allah? The world would be weird without moonbat liberals. Then what would conservatives be?

Theworldisnotenough on March 11, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Allah really has a thing for Rosie. Get help dude! As for most other Big Butted women, at least you can tell their ass from their mouth.

R D on March 12, 2007 at 12:05 AM

They depict the profile of women minus their heads – strongly suggesting that cavemen were more interested in the shape of the body than the way a female looked.

And just how is that different from “modern” man? Oops…un PC?

R D on March 12, 2007 at 12:10 AM

A show for Rosie herself. Can’t believe they haven’t thought of that before.

Mark V. on March 12, 2007 at 12:41 AM

So like next, you’re going to tell me that this is why Rosie was cast in the role of Betty Rubble, right?

CyberCipher on March 12, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Try to imagine what would happen to the caveman that drew his mate or love interest on a cave wall, complete with a head and face that was clearly recognizable by others, accompanied by a larger than life derriere. NOW is it clear why the drawings appeared without heads? Sheesh! We have to explain everything to these nimnuls — and they call themselves “scientists.”

CyberCipher on March 12, 2007 at 1:01 AM

Forget Rosie, and think J.Lo. Now that’s a respectable butt. Contrary to some anti-evolutionists here (“There were no cavemen”), I’d include a depiction of her head on my stone wall. It’s so pretty!

laelaps on March 12, 2007 at 1:29 AM

Maybe the dude was just painting a pic of a fat chick.

JackM on March 12, 2007 at 6:15 AM

The problem with Rosies butt is that it rests on her shoulders

EricPWJohnson on March 12, 2007 at 6:30 AM

A respectable big ass is one that you can put your drink on while the gal is standing up. Like a shelf. An ass that could break walnuts for you too.

Rosie’s ass is nothing but a huge depository for gravy. She can’t get inoculations because her ass would pop like a zit with gravy spewing all over the place.

csdeven on March 12, 2007 at 7:34 AM

I think all of you are missing the really important news. In 2080 we are going to have another “world hunger”. This would be about a dozen in the past couple of decades of a major starvation of the human poopulation (I misspelled it, but it looks right for this rant). When are we going to learn, we just can’t continue starving the world every couple of years.
Please, show some compassion.

right2bright on March 12, 2007 at 7:56 AM

It may actually be worse than that.

One of the reasons used to explain why human females have such enlarged breasts, is that when proto-humans started walking upright, the butt was less prominant, so the curvy parts moved upward.

dinasour on March 12, 2007 at 8:53 AM

mmmmm biggggg buttssssss

From “Scrubs” …

J.D.: “I need some advice, I um, have a date with a black woman and uh, I was just wondering …”

Turk: “Look,the only difference between a white woman and a black woman is that when a black woman says ‘Does this make my butt look big?’ you say ‘HELL YES!’”

Tony737 on March 12, 2007 at 9:05 AM

What’s with these women with no hips? They want boobs the size of Kansas but no hips. It’s not a sound architectural decision.

Coronagold on March 12, 2007 at 9:08 AM

What’s with these women with no hips? They want boobs the size of Kansas but no hips. It’s not a sound architectural decision.

Coronagold on March 12, 2007 at 9:08 AM

Large breasts are an adolescent boy’s prime fantasy. So what does this say about our culture? And you’re right, slender hips and huge knockers completely shifts the center of gravity, and that can’t be good….

honora on March 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM

Coming next: the interpretive dance featuring a song by Tool and a fishbowl full of pasta.

It’s all symbolic ‘n stuff.

Where’s my grant?

TABoLK on March 11, 2007 at 10:59 PM

American Idol perhaps?

honora on March 12, 2007 at 9:20 AM

So when are we going to hear the caveman remix of “Baby Got Back”?

thirteen28 on March 12, 2007 at 9:46 AM

So when are we going to hear the caveman remix of “Baby Got Back”?

thirteen28 on March 12, 2007 at 9:46 AM

I was going to suggest you’re too hip for the room, but perhaps it’s just that you’re too hip for me!

honora on March 12, 2007 at 10:26 AM

They depict the profile of women minus their heads – strongly suggesting that cavemen were more interested in the shape of the body than the way a female looked.

Or maybe they did care, but all the cavewomen were ugly.

Blacklake on March 12, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Hey! They finally buried James Brown. It was in you exit tangent link.

Valiant on March 12, 2007 at 10:58 AM

Having the unquestioned moral authority to comment, I believe the fact that the carvings were missing heads is strongly indicative of the fact that this was a religious (yes cavemen were religious) act seeking the god’s assistance in shutting them up!!!!!

Oh am I gonna get hate mail over that one.

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on March 12, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Maybe Rosie O’Donnell could’ve attracted a man back then.

Labamigo on March 12, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Having the unquestioned moral authority to comment, I

believe the fact that the carvings were missing heads is strongly indicative of the fact that this was a religious (yes cavemen were religious) act seeking the god’s assistance in shutting them up!!!!!

Oh am I gonna get hate mail over that one.

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on March 12, 2007 at 11:15 AM

And all for nought!!!

Cue Henry Higgins “Let a Woman in Your Life”

honora on March 12, 2007 at 1:39 PM