Another Ancient Dildo

i-00af6050d60bb1fab1627140dc8a0b0e-PB260003.JPG

Hot on the heels of the Motala bone boner, here’s another ancient likeness of a wee-wee.

Dear Reader Martin Kenny has kindly given me permission to publish a few pictures of his cock. It’s made of sandstone or a similar rock, and to my eye it’s pretty clearly modified by human hands, though it may have originated as a fossil cavity of some ancient mollusc. Measuring 6 inches long by 1.5 inches thick (small by Martin’s standards, he assures me), the rock-hard member was found in the 1990s on a construction site near Red Point in Elk Neck State Park, Elkton, Maryland.

i-634da5a5b8bc0cabede156ce2131f05f-PB260004.JPG

I must admit that the simple presence of red nail varnish in that picture makes it weirdly sexy to my eyes.

[More about , , , ; , , ]

Comments

  1. #1 Sigmund
    December 9, 2010

    “I must admit that the simple presence of red nail varnish in that picture makes it weirdly sexy to my eyes.”
    Why? Are you Loreena Bobbitt?

  2. #2 Birger Johansson
    December 9, 2010

    Big deal. The Egyptians -for instance- had lots of phallic cult objects, what makes this interesting is the site in North America.
    Since this was sculpted in stone it has survived the ravages of time. Maybe most hunter-gatherer cultures made similar cult objects, but since they used wood or bone to sculpt boners nothing remains today.

    Other genital-centric news (satire) “Obama Agrees to Extend Republicans’ Custody of His Balls” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obama-agrees-to-extend-re_b_794175.html

  3. #3 Supertec
    December 9, 2010

    Is the hole in the base for the insertion of batteries? Or is it merely for additional storage space?

  4. #4 Martin Kenny
    December 9, 2010

    I measured the depth of the hole in the base and it is 3.25 inches deep and the diameter of a pencil. One can only speculate what the hole was used for. Perhaps for attachment to a larger section of a sculpture? Or perhaps for a handle for the object itself?

    I too find it most interesting that it was found in the United States. It was relatively close to the eastern shores of the Chesapeake Bay, so perhaps it was on a ship and brought on shore before being lost… or tossed out by someone!

  5. #5 Martin R
    December 10, 2010

    Martin, the hole does suggest some attachment. But I see no reason to attribute the thing to Europeans. People lived in the eastern US for >10 000 years before Eric the Red and later overseas visitors.

  6. #6 Phillip IV
    December 10, 2010

    Martin R @ #5:

    Martin, the hole does suggest some attachment.

    Woah – it’s not just an ancient dildo, it’s the earliest strap-on ever discovered! This sensational find will have considerable impact for our view on gender relations in neolithic America.

  7. #7 Sandgroper
    December 10, 2010

    It looks like it might have been made from a stalagmite.

  8. #8 Sandgroper
    December 10, 2010

    (Oops.) In which case, the hole might be natural, like if a stalagmite or stalagtite formed around a plant root.

  9. #9 Sandgroper
    December 10, 2010

    OK, that’s my hypothesis – a strange shaped stalagtite formed around a plant root. Subsequently the cave dried out and an adventurous native American with a torch spotted it while cave-exploring, the size and shape struck him as familiar, so he broke it off and embellished it somewhat.

    I have read of a use for such implements in native American culture, but I read about it in fiction and didn’t take it too seriously. But maybe it was based on fact. What I read was that such an implement (in the fictional case made of wood and polished smooth) was used by the mother of a virginal bride-to-be on her daughter to make the way easier for her husband.

    This one looks a bit rough to me, though, but I guess with the application of enough bison fat or whatever…

  10. #10 Martin R
    December 10, 2010

    Yeah, stalagmite seems plausible to me, though I know little of such.

    If a person feels the need to prime their daughters for marriage with a large piece of polished wood, then I would suggest that they are marrying them off a bit too young.

  11. #11 Sandgroper
    December 10, 2010

    I’ve crawled around inside plenty of limestone caves for fun, and that was what immediately came to mind.

    Maybe they did – they wouldn’t be the first people to marry girls off at 11-12. I don’t know if they did, but I am familiar with some of the Australian Aboriginal practices, some of which were worse that a bit of polished wood – think ‘ambushing 11 year old girls, cutting them open with a sharp rock and pack-raping them.’

    The Biblical scholar Géza Vermes claimed that Mary would have been no more than 12 years old when she gave birth to the historical Jesus, as it was customary in that region 2,000 years ago to marry girls off at 11. And Vermes is a serious scholar (who obviously doesn’t believe in divine conception).

    Well, I don’t wish to join the ranks of the loony pseuds, but it seems there could be some plausible explanations for this. I wanted to bring this up when you posted on the Motala bone object, but have a fear of being a loony dabbler – the world has enough.

  12. #12 Martin R
    December 10, 2010

    I believe it would take some pretty serious cultural conditioning to make most men desire 12-y-os. Desire is largely biologically driven, and doinking children is simply maladaptive.

    David Buss claims that globally, when shown pictures of women and girls, modern men prefer 22-y-os as bedmates.

  13. #13 Sandgroper
    December 10, 2010

    Agreed, but the evidence shows that is what used to happen – and in parts of Australia was still happening well after European settlement, as documented by scientific anthropologists.

    And in some cultures today girls are still being married off as young as 10, as deplorable as that is.

  14. #14 Martin R
    December 10, 2010

    If my folks had arranged a marriage for me with a little girl when I was, say, 25, I would soon have become very friendly with the housekeeper.

  15. #15 dogteam
    December 10, 2010

    I’ll jump on the bandwagon for the stalactite origin, since there appear to be concentric rings? and they are often hollow…but I like your mollusk fossil idea as well.

    I think it’s a mistake to automatically assign ritual function to every object that’s unearthed…does no one ever stop to think that people in the past may have had a sense of humour? It’s not too much of a stretch to imagine some young man poking (if you’ll pardon the expression) around in local caves and coming across a familiar formation, and him taking and enhancing it for the amusement of his cronies. Adolescent humour has not changed that much in the last few thousand years, really….

  16. #16 dogteam
    December 10, 2010

    Speaking of adolescent humour….
    I see under “Recent Posts”, “dogteam on Another Ancient Dildo“.

    Ah Hahahahahahaha!

    Awesome. And teh interweb forever.

  17. #17 Martin R
    December 11, 2010

    Sit tight there! (-;

  18. #18 Martin Kenny
    December 11, 2010

    I guess I could agree that it could be a stalactite except for a couple observations.
    1.It is made of sand stone, not limestone.
    2.Also it is very rough, not smooth which is what the few stalactites seemed to be that I have seen touring caves.

    I still think its part of a larger specimen, and the hole was simply a ways to attache it to the larger specimen, but what the heck do I know?

  19. #19 Sandgroper
    December 12, 2010

    Martin, yes, you have the benefit of having examined it, but there appear to be visible fine sand grains in the base. Also, it doesn’t appear to be that smooth. Just eyeballing it, though, I would hesitate to label it a sandstone, but maybe.

    It was very definitely once attached to something, that seems clear to me, hence me wondering if it was a stalactite or stalagmite.

    Maybe the object was itself a handle, fashioned by someone with a sense of humour.

    A life-sized statue carved in sandstone with that appendage would be something.

  20. #20 seeing eye chick
    December 12, 2010

    Has the rock been tested to see where it comes from? 1. Assumption that Native Peoples in Ancient Americas could not have had a stone penis. Why not? 2. Could it have been taken there from somewhere else?

    We don’t know the position of the object in the ground, or exactly where or if those grounds have been searched again for other finds. Was it trash? Or perhaps a sacrifice that someone buried there? Or perhaps hidden there?

    The assumption that because it might be a fossil, that it hadn’t been used by a person for something simply because it did look like a penis.

    Remember during the hey day of cave exploration in the US, that people would break off crystals and stalagtites amd the like off for souvineers. Or in this case it could have been removed and hidden and thrown away.

    It reminds me possibly of the penis that could be on certain Egyptian statues–thinking of the story of Isis and Osiris. Many were broken off and discarded–could this one be a survivor?

  21. #21 Martin Kenny
    December 12, 2010

    I have not had anyone do any testing as I haven’t been able to get anyone interested in looking at it. I tried to get the Smithsonian to give me some guidance, but to no avail.
    You are correct, I do have the advantage of being able to hold it and examine it closely.

    That being said, I will add what I can observe, for what its worth.

    It most definitely is NOT a lime stone origin, and visually appears to be of Sandstone origin. It is very grainy over every surface, and is a brownish tint.

    The hole into the base is very uniform and straight, unlike what I think that you would expect from a stick as the shape of the rock is bent (like the real thing) and yet the hole is not bent. That tends to make me think that the hole was not from development around another object and deposits forming around that interior object, as I would expect to see the hole follow the general exterior shape if that were the case.

    While I am in no means an expert of such things,these facts just seem to bring questions to my mind about that theory.

  22. #22 Bob Carlson
    December 13, 2010

    As reported today on msnbc.com.

  23. #23 Martin R
    December 13, 2010

    Haha, yeah, this is the sort of thing that will get the media’s attention…

  24. #24 Suzie Heumann
    December 17, 2010

    Phallus’ have been used in ancient societies all over Asia for thousands of years, both as ritual symbols and actual strap-ons. Several Native American societies have sacred sexual practices that have components similar to Hindu Tantra. We are sexual beings. What makes you doubt that that wasn’t true a thousand or two thousand or 40,000 years ago?
    I found an exquisitely carved wooden strap-on in Thailand at a flea market several years back. It had magical writings on it (I have had it looked at by a specialist in ancient sexual objects) but is only about 100 years old. Still, a tradition that lives on!

  25. #25 Angela
    December 22, 2010

    I think it’s origin was something like a geoduck, which you may not have heard of if you don’t live in the Pacific NW. It was my college’s mascot and we had a very interesting school “fight song.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoduck

  26. #26 Martin R
    December 23, 2010

    What a fantastic creature!

  27. #27 kay
    las vegas
    September 28, 2012

    I found a stone that looks like a penis and do not know who or where to have it looked at to find out more. Can you suggest where I should go next……………I also found one that looks like a female vulva and clitoris!