Anonymous ID: 1dc912 Dec. 17, 2021, 6:06 a.m. No.15207476   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7508

>>15201642

 

(Please read from the start)

 

“The figures were first made in the Levantine coast in the 8th century BCE. and became widespread during the 6th to 4th centuries with the earliest known examples in Cyprus appearing in the 6th century. Depictions of pregnancy and motherhood were uncommon in Near Eastern iconography, as fertility was typically indicated by naked female figures holding their breasts. The most numerous and finest come from Phoenician tombs near Akhziv near ancient Tyre. Some of these figurines are dedicated in Cyprus from the 6th to the 5th century. On Cyprus, large number of figures have only been found in the city-kingdoms of Kition, Lapethos and Amathous, where Phoenician language and culture was dominate. Within Kition, these figures have been found within two urban sanctuaries and on the acropolis of Amthous, where the principal sanctuary of Aphrodite Kypria is located. A single figure has also been found in a sanctuary in Chytri. Figures have also been found in Lakonia, the sanctuary of Eileithyia Inatia in Crete, and possibly at the sanctuary of Demeter at Corinth. Some of these figures may have had a function as an anatomical teaching model, as some have been found with a square hole in the abdomen where a model fetus was placed.”

 

>> (((They))) had to throw Israel in there, (((they))) cannot resist it. No anons, it was in Tyre itself that the biggest batch of these figurines was found. And notice how it’s forbidden to say the word Phoenicia, instead (((they))) use “the Levantine coast”. For the colonies, well, Dea Gravida was found in a big number of them. As for Dea Gravida being an anatomical teaching model = double face palm for the old man. (((They))) really think we are stupid. (((They))) are willing to come up with such silly, stupid explanations so (((they))) won’t admit whom this deity really is. Amazing!

 

“The terracotta figures have been divided into three different groupings: those made by hand, those thrown on a potter's wheel, and those produced in a mold. The molded figurines had the greatest outside influence from other cultures. These are used to as votive figures in sanctuaries, as funerary offerings at cemeteries, and sometimes they have been found in the cargo of transport ships.”

 

>> Using molds indicates the mass stereotyped production of these statuettes which is confirmed by the models we have. We can also divide them into groups relying on the design, not just on how they are made. I don’t see these figurines having been submitted to outside influence. If they are referring about the Ancient Egyptian influence on the design on some of the Dea Gravida statuettes then this is no influence, but it’s actually reflecting the truth = it’s literally indicating to reality, as Neith was from Ancient Egypt and she dressed that way. This is no influence, this is factual. It’s like taking a photograph of Neith, but since we didn’t have cameras back then to take photos, they made these clay statuettes in her image. She truly used to dress like that. These are not votive figurines or funerary offerings, these were cult statuettes with people praying to them, but they were portable ones and household items. I’ve already mentioned them being with travelers, traders, sailors.

 

“Difference from kourotrophos

 

Dea Gravida is similar to kourotrophos figures. (Greek: κουροτρόφος, "child nurturer"). These figures typically presented as women or goddesses holding babies in their arms and they were sometimes shown nursing. However, some figures are show both pregnant and carrying a baby. Kourotrophos was also used to describe ancient Greek gods and goddesses whose properties included their ability to protect young people. Numerous gods were called by this adjective, including but not limited to Athena, Apollo, Hermes, Hecate, Aphrodite, Artemis, and Eileithyia.

 

Kourotrophos was a major figure of cult, appearing in sacrifice groups connected with fertility and child care.

 

[…]”

 

>> This pure B.S. Everything written above is just that. And (((they))) are trying hard to connect Dea Gravida to the sacred prostitution while it had nothing to do with it. Two different deities, two different cults = nothing in common between them, in fact, they are on opposite sides of one another.

 

  • Page 1 711 –

Anonymous ID: 1dc912 Dec. 17, 2021, 6:13 a.m. No.15207508   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3150

>>15207476

 

(Please read from the start)

 

In page 1 707, the last picture I’ve attached is a series of Dea Gravida statuettes, clearly stereotype, coming from a mass production. I couldn’t find pictures with a better display of the same type of Dea Gravida as those for anons. There are better samples, clearer ones, to view. So I’m not basing my words on nothing. It’s just I wasn’t able to find a better sample for anons. These Dea Gravida are damaged and worn out, so it’s hard for an inexperienced eye to get a clear picture.

 

I’m done with the Wikipedia page of Dea Gravida, but not with her yet. I want to talk now about Isis/Neith being Baalat of Gebal, being the Queen of queen by presenting to anons a special type of Dea Gravida statuettes = Dea Gravida nursing her baby. This series of Dea Gravida is very special. In the sample I’m providing here for anons, we can clearly see there is residue of paint on this statuette, showing details of her clothes.

 

Dea Gravida is seated here, the baby’s head close to her left breast = she is nursing him. Look closely to the colorful collar of her clothes, maybe it’s not very clear to anons, but this collar is incredibly close to the clothing from Ancient Egypt. Why is this important? Because during all the History of Ancient Egypt we have very famous iconography of Isis almost identical to this series of Dea Gravida = from the early dynastic times all the way to Ptolemaic times, even a mutated version during Roman times.

 

I’m putting, with this page, different samples of Isis nursing Horus iconography; they come from different eras and from different types of artifacts. Since I don’t have much space in this page, I’m attaching with the next page a sample = an artifact of Isis nursing Horus from the Roman period. I’m also attaching to the next page a drawing made in the 18th century of the same iconography with a little variant= Isis doesn’t have a human head but a cow’s head. I couldn’t find an artifact supporting this idea of Isis cow head nursing Horus. Which in turn is making me wonder where the author of this drawing got this idea from? Did he get the idea from late period when association between Isis and Hathor occured? Probably. It’s possible.

 

Now let’s talk a bit about the artifacts from Ancient Egypt itself, including the one from Ptolemaic period. We can identify Isis because of her “throne” crown but if you look closely, we have also a variant of the crown = she sometimes is represented with Hathor’s horned crown. She is seated when represented as a statuette, but in reliefs we see her sometimes standing while nursing Horus. She is fully clothed but sometimes represented nude (mutated form). And she is nursing him via her left breast.

 

Now compare with Dea Gravida. It’s the same and IDENTICAL ideas and iconography. Sure the details are a bit different and with Dea Gravida we have her in different poses, sometimes pregnant, and she wears Phoenician clothing. But the idea behind both is identical. It’s a mother, fully clothed, seated, nursing her baby from her left breast. Of course there are variants and it’s only this series = this set of Dea Gravida that is projecting an identical image as the traditional image of Isis nursing Horus. The variation is due to chronology = as time passed.

 

  • Page 1 712 –