 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I think its clearly a representation of a human body. Natural occurance didn't create that. It looks like 2 legs, arms, and probably breast. Not much clothes back then so they would hang down. And a faceless head...unless you interpret the two dots on the head as eyes like i did.DeWente69 (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
you want to look at the photograph, not our made-for-wiki drawing. It's just a rock. I mean, do you know how many rocks there are in Morocco? Do you find it surprising that one of them should look remotely like a human figure? So this was in Current Anthropology a couple of years back. Unless we can show this publication had any sort of impact, keeping an article on this "Venus" still fails WP:NOTE since we don't do encyclopedia articles on single journal articles. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know of the notability, except I would at the least doubt vote for keeping articles at such significant fringes as this one of the possibly oldest extant work of art; but as long as it's not scientifically settled that that's what it is, there can of course be no talk of incorporating it into an article on art. And even if that should happen, there is already a body of articles on individual prehistoric sculptures. ---Keinstein (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- well, we have Art of the Middle Paleolithic, which consists precisely of discussions on dubious material such as this. As long as we don't have very much material on this, it may make more sense to dedicate a section or paragraph to it within the context of a larger article. --dab (𒁳) 07:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)