|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|A fact from Swimming Reindeer appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 18 August 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Hi all, is anyone concerned with the section beginning with "Further studies"? This seems to be based on the 19th century "hunting tallies" hypothesis, which was proposed to explain simple series of notches on bone, but suggesting that such an impressive artifact was carved and engraved, using various tools and techniques, only to count how many reindeer a group of hunters just killed may be taking it a little too far...Kileytoo (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to adjust or add, here or anywhere else. I haven't seen the Jill Cook book for the current BM exhibition yet, but other editors have used her "Objects in Focus" book, though the citing is unclear. Not sure it implies "only". Sourcing is a problem for all these articles for most of us. "Unquiet Pasts" is/was a BM assistant curator on the exhibition, who has at least looked over most of the articles on BM objects. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have the "Objects in Focus" booklet soon, so I'll wait before to edit (also, as you may have guessed, I really need to get more familiar with the interface, tools, etc.) Kileytoo (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Just went through the "Objects in Focus" booklet, the hunting tallies interpretation is not in there. The author mentions a possible mating behavior (observed on land) but more consistently describes the reindeer as swimming in the water. In the end, she offers a range of hunting-magic and shamanistic interpretations of the composition. I'd still like to know more about the sources referred to as "further studies"...Kileytoo (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This was a "tool"
I'm so tired of archaeologists interpreting anything they don't understand as simply "art." At the very least call it prehistoric crafts, because they were actually utilized in some way. In the case of this figure, it is a prehistoric fertility "dildo." The male deer is coming up behind the female to mount her.
It would be used on the female before copulation because of the increased fertility perceived to coincide with female orgasm. Note the ridging.
Archaeologists historically are afraid to openly discuss the sexual nature of prehistoric crafts. This is why so many things are labeled "fertility object" when they are dildos, plain and simple. Yes, population increases were the larger goal of this. But the female orgasm was proof that some supernatural force had blessed her womb. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)