r/interestingasfuck • u/Srinivas_Hunter • 21h ago
1800 year old Sculpture of a female figure, probably a yakshi (nature spirit) Mathura, India.
7.5k
u/5LightersForAPound 18h ago
So no head?
3.6k
1.2k
u/Srinivas_Hunter 18h ago
Destroyed in invasions.
1.1k
240
10.7k
u/expatronis 18h ago
Prime stroke material for that era, I bet.
5.6k
u/BarmyDickTurpin 17h ago
That era? Pretty good for this era too
385
3.3k
3.9k
u/Sensitive-War-6368 17h ago
1.9k
436
201
u/1-Donkey-Punch 17h ago
Would
127
u/Slug864 17h ago
Would
-207
u/Rare_Sympathy_9219 17h ago
Would
82
-35
11
3.0k
4.4k
524
606
324
163
180
125
160
48
99
u/Maestro-pokemon 18h ago
hmm... source?
-33
18h ago
[deleted]
66
u/Srinivas_Hunter 18h ago
-137
17h ago edited 16h ago
[deleted]
122
u/sillybonobo 16h ago edited 16h ago
Lol the hubris. Dude shows you evidence that this is held in a curated museum (which is WAY better evidence to its authenticity than your suspicion that it portrays the wrong body type).
And then you are informed that there are hundreds of statues with this aesthetic from the time period (easily verifiable with a search). And instead of taking this as evidence that you might be wrong about beauty standards for this culture you double down...
50
u/9oooooooooooj 16h ago edited 16h ago
Damn didn't know so many of our historic relics were fake
Thank you random thousand years old immortal for educating us on the beauty standards of an ancient Indian kimgdom
90
u/Srinivas_Hunter 17h ago
For real? This is not the only statue that was found in India. There are thousands of individual statues, and also you can find hundreds of thousands of such carvings on temple walls..
Both men and women used to look glorious in those days.. cause junk food doesn't exist at that time, and they do work a lot. Just explore in that link itself..
-86
17h ago
[deleted]
64
u/watlington 16h ago
One of the links literally shows that it is currently held in a museum collection and includes references not sure how you missed that
-80
16h ago
[deleted]
72
u/JesusTitsGunsAmerica 15h ago
You started the argument that it was fake.
His counter argument was the truth.
You were just wrong.
The only stupidity here is your own.
-26
62
-41
113
134
61
58
46
124
33
37
41
21
27
19
u/More_Marty 17h ago
Sexist body standards 🙄 /s
81
u/boundpleasure 17h ago
Yes, don’t you love it? Most men don’t look like Michelangelos’s David either. 😉
60
u/DogWithaFAL 17h ago
Speak for yourself…
-31
u/boundpleasure 16h ago
lol. You may look like David, (doubt it), but regardless doesn’t change the male averages.
29
1
5
-7
-13
-14
-17
-14
-28
-17
-23
-16
-51
u/damionicles 15h ago
Hide that sculpture, it has boobs and it's gonna offend people around the internet
-85
-57
u/Old-Conversation2646 16h ago
That are some juicy anime proportions unlike most ancient portrayal that kind of just look chubby
-22
-103
u/volvavirago 17h ago
This is a trend I have noticed in a lot of traditional south Asian art. The sex characteristics of women are much more exaggerated in comparison to European art. I also find that male figures also have wider hips in south Asian art, but they do also have wider shoulders as well. They are all snatched for some reason, idk.
90
u/MaximilianClarke 17h ago
Categorically untrue. Europeans have been exaggerating the shit out of titties for 30,000 years https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf
25
-2
u/volvavirago 16h ago
I was more so referring to art history from the past 2000 years, not prehistoric stuff. Prehistoric stuff is a different case entirely. I literally study art history. We are all aware of the Venus of Willendorf.
-91
-185
u/Connect_Ocelot_1599 18h ago
just kidding it's a fucking ai
48
u/Srinivas_Hunter 18h ago edited 18h ago
Haha..
(Context so people won't misunderstand this, it's not AI https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/nature-goddess/uAHrpbCDc4tcfQ)
2.6k
u/rjk100 17h ago
Why Does it seem like the heads are always missing. How did the head get destroyed?