Dr. Martin Rundkvist is a Swedish archaeologist, journal editor, public speaker, skeptic, atheist, lefty liberal, bookworm, and father of two.
The spring issue of Antiquity, a journal for which I am proud to act as a correspondent, has come on-line and is being distributed on paper as well. It has a lot to offer those interested in Northern European archaeology: papers on the construction date of Silbury Hill in Wiltshire, England; on the late-1st Millennium temple at Uppåkra, Scania, Sweden; on mid-to-late 1st Millennium research as historical archaeology; on the Viking Period towns and trade network around the Baltic; and (as illustrated above) on voluptuous Late Magdalenian female silhouettes knapped in flint and found at Wilczyce in Poland. (Note that these finds constitute solid precedent to settle the boobs vs buns debate in favour of my camp once and for all.)
And check out the journal's re-vamped web site.
[More blog entries about archaeology, art, palaeolithic, Vikings, Vikingperiod, Sweden, Poland, Denmark; arkeologi, Polen, Danmark, Skåne, England, konst, paleolitikum.]
Comments
Re: Boobs vs buns debate. Maybe the picture is upside down.
Posted by: Ex-drone | March 11, 2007 7:49 AM
Pleistocene trannies with insanely huge fake boobs? Argl.
Posted by: Martin R | March 11, 2007 8:43 AM
Are they buns or a bun in the oven?
Posted by: natural cynic | March 11, 2007 1:29 PM
Definitely buns. There was this paper (in Antiquity?) a few years back where Late Palaeolithic representations of women were compared to modern pornography. Striking parallels.
Posted by: Martin R | March 11, 2007 2:06 PM
Thanks for the link! There's an article by Lars Larsson about Scandinavian 'temples', an issue that I tried to tackle lately. (Btw, you are credited for the link at urnordisk, which will not bring you new readers since target audience there speaks Russian but it'll somewhat raise your blog's citation index).
Posted by: Denis | March 11, 2007 3:57 PM
Actually, I think that settles the debate, since fake buns are much rarer. :-)
I find it interesting that my preferences change from time to time. Currently it is voluptuous hair, preferably long. (So I'm back in the face after traversing much of the female body. It started out with eyes in early adolescence - which incidentally made the interesting group larger. :-)
And that women doesn't care about such simple-minded characteristics? I don't buy it! Perhaps they made their idols in less persistent materials...
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 12, 2007 1:50 AM
Women knap flint too...
Posted by: Martin R | March 12, 2007 2:56 AM
Following on from MartinR's comment that they remind him of that Late Palaeolithic article, I have a flashback to a first year lecture I had about earth-mother representations - certainly was a bit too much for a lecture taking place just after breakfast..
As for flint knappers, wouldn't women be more sensible than to take part in an activity where losing a finger seems to be an occupational hazard?
Posted by: mikeB | March 12, 2007 7:42 AM
Sensible?! C'mon, we're talking about people who willingly associate with human males. They clearly have no clue whatsoever.
I gather the main risk with flint knapping, apart from the small ubiquitous cuts, is getting splinters lodged into an eye.
Posted by: Martin R | March 12, 2007 7:47 AM