Talk:Seated Woman of Çatalhöyük


 * Also see:
 * Talk:Cybele 
 * Talk:Çatalhöyük 

Article Requires Serious Clean Up!!!
I'm no editor so I'm not making any changes, but I do wish to bring the following to the attention of any editors who can hopefully address the horrendous state of this article.

To begin:

"The Seated Goddess of Çatal Hüyük is a neolithic carving by an unknown artist. Completed sometime between 7000 BC and 5000 BC, this symbol of fertility was unearthed by archeologist James Mellaart in 1961 at a site in Çatal Hüyük, Turkey."

This statement is inaccurate as the archeological community currently posses no real knowledge about the figurine's actually subject. We know it depicts a female. We can infer, by the fact that it lacks defined facial features that it is not representing an actually individual but probably either a concept, an ideal, or a cultural icon. However, there is NO PROOF AT ALL that the figurine was a symbol of fertility. Also, whether or not it was a goddess is also still hotly debated in the archeological and paleo-ethnological communities. All evidence for either identity of the figurine is speculation at best and SHOULD be labeled as conjecture, NOT FACT. That is, not unless there is some kind of scientific proof that has recently surfaced, been verified, and published in a reliable peer reviewed journal that I am simply unaware of... and in which case it should be sourced.

"Seated Goddess is considered a "Venus Figure". Venus figures were first applied to images in the 1860s and is meant to encompass the entire group of figures that share the following characteristics:

* These figures are ALL female * These figures are meant to represent the ideas of womanhood, femininity, pregnancy and as such their anatomical parts associated with these ideas are emphasized."

All serious, modern archeologist define the title of "Venus Figurine" as archaic and outdated, based on a stereotypical mid-late 19th and early 20th century approach to the field. The fact that simply because a nude female is presented that it is automatically a "Venus" in the style of the Roman Classical sculptures is misleading, to say the least. This section does not indicate the false nature of that pretense which the sculptures are named under, but instead presents the naming convention as fact, and through clever (or unintentionally misleading) semantics, causes readers to assume that the naming conventions arose from the actual craftsmen who made the figurines (as bolded.) Also related to the bolded content, archeologist have no way of "knowing" what the craftsmen or artisans who created any of the "Venus" figurines "meant" to convey or represent, especially not in relation to such abstract ideas as womanhood or femininity. The debate surrounding these figurines is far from over, with many ulterior explanations that have been presented as to their anatomically incorrect representations. However, again, only a single view is presented here, and in such as way as to seem to be the only acceptable view. It is not. Even a small amount of research will reveal the many other, credible theories currently being debated, right along side the Venus-Goddess theory.

"In this instance, our Venus is actually seated, or more likely enthroned, since this was a culture that likely would have worshipped a female deity as supreme rather than a male."

Spelling error aside, and improper use of personal pronouns aside, the scientific community knows almost nothing about CatalHuyuk's culture, in any definitive way, and especially little of its religious community. There is no evidence presented to support the claim that the culture would have worshiped a female deity as supreme rather than a male. The figurine itself is the only evidence for this, and it cannot be used as evidence to support itself. That is a serious logical fallacy. Further more, that the figure is enthroned is speculation, treated by the inclusion of the phrase "more likely" as fact. Even if the culture had been confirmed to worship a supreme female deity, there is still no proof at all that this would be a presentation of that deity, nor that the deity would even be depicted as enthroned, as the vast majority of archeologically confirmed supreme female deities soon after this era are universally depicted standing triumphantly (see Innana-Ishtar, Astarte, Ashera, Ashteroth, Isis, etc). Of course this is also merely inference, which serves to show the fallacious nature of including mere speculation in an article without presenting apposing arguments.

"She is meant to be seen as controlling these creatures"

Again no way of actually knowing what "she is meant to be seen" as doing. Neither is the statement, that the figure presented would be controlling them, accurate as most depictions of animals with goddesses were usually not about control, but about representing specific animals that were sacred to the the goddess and had certain rights, taboos, and rituals attached to them.

"Several ancient cultures, during and after this time period used similar imagery and gave the Venus/Goddess an actual name: she was called Ishtar in ancient Sumeria and Babylon, Isis in Egypt; and Cybele in Anatolia and Greece!!"

While excitement for archeology is always desirable, making unverifiable claims such as the above is intolerable. None of the listed culture existed congruently with the CatalHuyuk culture, and of those who were close, all had pantheons ruled by supreme male deities, a fact which contradicts the above statements about the figurine. Further more, there is no historically verifiable link between any of the so called "Venuses" and later goddesses, other than certain general similarities which cannot prove any of the above claims. Here some sources would be greatly desired as well, as there is some actual reputable research in this area of the connection, albeit controversial, which at the very least may help to inform readers instead of misleading them with mere speculation.

"It appears that she has already "given birth" and the child rests between her feet."

Opinion represented as fact, needs to be worded better for clarity.

"There were a number of goddess artifacts recovered, either made of baked clay or carved from stone."

Sources required, pictures desired.

"mother-goddess is represented in various forms: a young girl, an old woman or a woman giving birth to a child."

If this were true it would be very exciting, especially for the neopagan movement. However, if there is no reliable source that can verify this claim, it is more than likely mere Wiccan wishful thinking, as the triad of images listed seem to fit the traditional image set, established by Graves (of maiden, mother, and crone) just too well. Either it is remarkable coincidence, Wiccan providence, or simply statements repeated in ignorance. Please validate statement or remove to prevent further confusion between fact and fiction.

The article is one sided, contains numerous logical and historical fallacies, presents a skewed view of the actual research that has been done on the field, and conveniently forgets sources when making extremely controversial claims. It is in drastic need of clean up, or should have at least the majority of the text erased, with a bare description remaining until someone with adequate knowledge in the area can write a decent article.

96.225.218.168 (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)ProfWellington1922

--
 * I concur. When I originally created this article I was not a subject manner expert and therefore stuck to the facts of its basic description and finding. Since then it appears a number of people have added their perspective and as you state the POV has become incredibly skewed. I re-edited back to a "just the facts" form. Hopefully someone with a greater understanding of the research regarding this object will be able to weigh in with additional info. Thanks for identifying this. Keithh (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've noted the common consensus, with a couple of references, in the article. The "controversial claims" are actually those of the anonymous essayist above.--Wetman (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reconstructed parts
User:Wetman says that the head is a restoration. Which is not unimportant. I would judge that the left hand-side kitten is a restoration too. May Wetman confirm this? —6birc (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)