this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
252 points (98.8% liked)

Historical Artifacts

1033 readers
214 users here now

Just a community for everyone to share artifacts, reconstructions, or replicas for the historically-inclined to admire!

Generally, an artifact should be 100+ years old, but this is a flexible requirement if you find something rare and suitably linked to an era of history, not a strict rule. Anything over 100 is fair game regardless of rarity.

Generally speaking, ruins should go to !historyruins@lemmy.world

Illustrations of the past should go to !historyillustrations@lemmy.world

Photos of the past should go to !HistoryPorn@lemmy.world

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

Dummy thicc

[–] Steve@startrek.website 40 points 2 days ago

She never skip leg day

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 35 points 2 days ago

The original thunder thighs

[–] sir_pronoun@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I dunno. I don't think they'd have time for that while kung-fu fighting.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

It's possible that they were fighting because of something someone did earlier. It may (or may not) have had anything to do with being horny. I'm just open to the possibility that the one lead to the other, even if there's no archeological or lyrical record of it. Sometimes you find this stuff in the subtext.

And now, so am I.

Back when I studied Anthropology in college, they would always talk about statuettes like these being evidence of a "cult of fertility". Years later I realized that's just fancy academia language for "porn".

[–] wisely@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The 1,000 year gap really shows how fast things move now. Imagine not being able to date if something was made 1,000 years ago or today. Even a couple decades is a big change in what we use.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Did they not wear tops? My knowledge is limited to road to Eldorado.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Just imagine how they would have drawn her if it wasn't a kids movie.

[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Ive never seen the film so I looked up that character, that shit is thirsty as fuck

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I mean, they already basically showed her giving sloppy head sooooo.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

my point exactly.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago

Re-watch time!

[–] smee@poeng.link 9 points 2 days ago

Thick ancles, good for pulling plow.

[–] Geetnerd@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

I'm digging the thickness...

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thanks for the link. I genuinely thought it was too good to be from that era. And the expression on her face has a kind of attitude. Even in kids toys in my lifetime, I've only seen than in more recent figures as opposed to the 80's when I was growing up. Back then they were expressionless, even for figures from toys from well known franchises.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

A question of artisan work vs. mass-produced goods, I think!

[–] twice_hatch@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago

"Adolescent girl" ah that explains why her boobs look like mine

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 12 points 2 days ago

Identifies as thick.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago