Julia/29/Germany. Mostly just trashposting with some feminism, animals, science and fandoms strewn in. Great Northern War enthusiast. Idk I've been on here for too long, this site has ruined me. DNI Augustus the Strong, Elector of Saxony, supporters! Yes, I'm a Slytherin. Ex-edgy teen. Unironically straight edge. If you need anything tagged, message me! I'll do my best about it. If you want to avoid seeing my blorbos please block 'max and karl', any post by me is tagged 'personal'. My inbox/IM is always open to all of you and I appreciate every message I get. It's to be seen if you appreciate my answer though.
I call this one "shared vigil"; post-canon, Hannah Shepard (Spacer Shep's mum) and Garrus sit at Shepard's bedside and share a quiet moment as they watch over her slow sloooooow recovery.
the orange sort of net-like covering over Shepard's body I was imagining as a futuristic way of creating a sanitised safe space for her without her having to be in an entirely separate room, or any visitors having to scrub up every time they go see her. I used Jennifer Hale's face as reference for Hannah :)
Just curious but where does the star on cheek motif come from in Ancient Greece? Itâs beautiful but I donât know what itâs called so I canât google it effectively and âstar on cheek ancient Greeceâ did not net me much. If you have any resources on this I would love to read them!
I'm not sure if there's an actual term for it, but the main (and perhaps only) point of reference that everyone seems to use is this painted plaster head of a woman from Mycenae c. 12th century BCE (National Archaeological Museum Athens inv. 4575). it's a unique and pretty unusual object for the period, but apparently there are a couple of other (less well-preserved or less impressive) examples of women's faces depicted with these red suns/stars/rosettes on their cheeks and chins in Mycenaean art. there's some thought that it might be a representation of some sort of makeup worn by real women in late Bronze Age Mycenae, potentially royalty and/or priestesses in official ritual contexts. alternatively it could be an artistic marker of divinity or non-human status with absolutely no relation to women's appearances in real life, since this head may have belonged to a statue of a goddess or a sphinx. we do have a decent number of Mycenaean wall painting fragments depicting female figures, and I don't believe any of them have these markings on their faces-- the trend of depicting mythic or historical Bronze Age Greek women like this really does seem to all come back to this one object.
Hey, jumping in to add some resources - during my archaeology degree I focused specifically on Late Bronze Age (LBA) Aegean dress & adornment, so while I'm not at all an expert I've got a pretty good grasp of current research.
Answering the first question, the term you're looking for is 'rosette', or more specifically - depending on the academic - 'dot-rosette'. This was a common LBA iconographic motif in the Near East & Aegean, depicted on a variety of materials; from ceramics to textiles, architecture, metalwork, jewellery, stone carving, etc etc. These depictions could be simple & stylised, more realistic/flower-like, or even quite sophisticated and complex - the dot style seen on NAM.4575 (the plaster head that OP linked & pictured above) being on the simpler, more stylised side.
It, as OP pointed out, is a very singular object for the LBA. Not only is NAM.4575 a large scale three dimensional human figure, but it has so much surviving pigment!! As per gendered iconographic norms (e.g. skin colour) for the LBA Aegean it clearly depicts a female, however there is debate over the specifics depicted. Is she real or divine, human or mystical? It certainly comes from religious context, excavated in the Cult Centre of Mycenae, and the headdress she wears (known as a Polos) has strong links to ritual practice. Worn by (likely) goddesses, mortal figures of high religious or social significance (e.g. priestesses), as well as sphinxes (but not exclusively! older scholarship skewed towards majority sphinxes but our understanding of Poloi wearers has improved over time and tbh there are more occurrences of being worn by human/human-like divinities than by a sphinx). This led to the initial identification of NAM.4575 as a sphinx, however more recent consensus in scholarship interprets her (IMO more correctly) as a goddess or mortal woman of high ritual/social status. Either way, wherever she falls on the mortal/divine divide, it is clear NAM.4575's facial markings hold some form of ritual function for high status women.
However, as mentioned briefly by OP, she is not the sole depiction of facial rosettes from the archaeological record - similar markings *do* appear occasionally elsewhere.
Brief Overview of Rosette facial markings within the archaeological material:
Earlier examples of painted facial rosettes (as well as so many other simple designs) can be seen on some Early Cycladic Figures, such as this EC II marble female head from Keros pictured below on the left, displayed at the Karlsruhe Badisches Landesmuseum (inv.70/550). While the condition of the figure's pigment has deteriorated, traces of pigment on the cheeks and chin in a dot-rosette pattern can still be seen.
More contemporary with NAM.4575 both in time (LBA) and location (found within the Mycenae Cult Center complex) is MM.294, a LH IIIB2 ceramic female figurine. As can clearly be seen in the middle picture below (taken by me at the Archaeological Museum of Mycenae) two facial dot-rosettes are detailed, with one on each cheek. They are less sophisticated then those seen on the plaster head, unsurprising with the differences in material and quality between the two artefacts. Other body markings are also present.
Another LBA dot-rosette example can be seen on CMS II 052, a LM I hematite seal stone now located in the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion. While not depicted explicitly on a human face, the seal consists of 4 'floating' objects isolated from any background - an eye, ear, and two dot-rosettes. CMS II 052 (pictured below right) therefore provides evidence of an explicit association of dot-rosettes with other human facial features.
With the explicit proviso I have yet to find scholarly discussion regarding a link to facial markings specifically (unsurprising with how extremely niche of a subtopic this is), through my own research I've found some fragmentary examples of apparent facial dot-rosette markings on phi Ί type figurines. As currently for many phi Ί types no comprehensive pigment analysis exists, or if undertaken most technical reports are not publicly available, so my interpretation of painted facial markings cannot at this stage be definitively confirmed. This identification is instead based solely on visual surveying of available material, with some examples seemingly depicting dot-rosette facial markings that have degraded due to pigment loss over time. One such example is below, a LH III phi Ί type grave good from Tanagra, now displayed in the Archaeological Museum of Thebes (where this picture was taken, by me). On the figurine's left cheek two dots are visible, potentially once part of a larger dot-rosette motif (especially considering pigment loss is evident elsewhere on the figure).
Facial Markings more generally in the archaeological record:
Looking not *just* at dot-rosettes but more broadly at the practice of facial markings in the LBA Aegean there is a greater body of evidence. They appear within a larger variety of contexts, depicted on votive offerings, grave goods, religious objects, and as artistic imagery within high status urban complexes, domestic spaces, peak sanctuaries, and even rock shelters. Notably, while many of these depictions may hold ritual purposes they are represented not just on goddesses but also on explicitly confirmed non-divine women (in fact, I'd argue the majority are mortal rather than divine). This suggests that facial markings were practised by real LBA women in the Aegean, albeit likely not as common, everyday practice for majority of the population. At current, there is no absolute consensus on whether this was achieved by temporary cosmetics (most likely?), tattooing, scarification, or some other method with a variety of generally simple geometric designs depicted within the archaeological record.
The simplest design of facial markings - red, blush-like circular blobs on the cheeks - can be seen on multiple frescoes, see below pictured examples of women within the House of the Ladies Fresco from LBA Akrotiri, Thera; as well as another female plaster head from Mycenae, the smaller and more damaged NAM.7712 pictured below right.
Simple cheek circle markings are also represented on other figurines such as ceramic head AMH.Î 1102 from Agious Antonios (pictured below left & centre), or on this stunning clay woman's head found at the Pisokephalo peak sanctuary, with a very distinct red pigmented mark on her left cheek (pictured below right, taken by me at the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion)
Diamond facial marks also occurred, evident on a few terracotta Mycenaean figures, MM.320 (left) and MM.1552 (right), both images taken at the Archaeology Museum of Mycenae by me
A favourite of mine from Agia Triada, the fragmentary AHM.Î 3085 shows unique fragmentary forehead marks of concentric semi or full circles. (below left taken by me at the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion)
Appearing significantly more frequently are depictions of (painted?) red ears, for example seen in the West House Priestess Fresco from Akrotiri (below right taken by me at the Prehistoric Museum of Thira)
The above examples of facial markings designs are not exhaustive, but with many of the remaining extant designs being unique and/or in poor condition I've tried to only discuss those that are of most relevance.
Of these examples, majority come from secure religious contexts and while some could potentially depict divinity, many can also be ruled out as not depicting goddesses at all - but rather real women. While most likely these would be high ranking priestesses, worshippers, holders of some other specific ritual function, or otherwise high status individuals (rather than the average woman) it is clear that some form of cosmetic facial marks were practised by some LBA women. The rarity of depictions likely means these markings held a specific ritual or social meaning no longer evident today. Regarding rosettes specifically, it was a much more widespread motif in textiles, art, architecture, and jewellery then depicted as a facial marking, however several examples *do* exist - with NAM.4575 being the most spectacular and well known.
For more in depth discussion and research on rosettes and/or facial markings within the LBA Aegean I've listed a few articles in the readmore below. I've tried to only add ones that are freely available online, but for the ones that aren't feel free to dm for pdf copies. All imagery not taken by me are from publicly available sources (wikimedia commons, the Arachne CMS database, open access publications, and online museum digital collections)
Further reading:
Blakolmer, H. 2012 âBody Marks and Textile Ornaments in Aegean Iconography: Their Meaning and Symbolismâ in KOSMOS ed. Nosh and Laffineur.
Earle, J. 2012 âCosmetics and Cult Practices in the Bronze Age Aegean? A Case Study of Women with Red Earsâ in KOSMOS ed. Nosh and Laffineur.
Nicolakaki-Kentrou, M. 2007 'Artists exchanging vocabularies: the dot-rosette motif on ceramics and textiles of the 2nd millennium BC in Egypt and the Aegean' in Mediterranean Crossroads. ed. Antoniaou and Pace.
Palaiologu, H. 2015 'A Female Painted Plaster Figure from Mycenae' in Mycenaean Wall Painting in Context. New Discoveries, Old Finds Reconsidered. ed. Brecoulaki, Davis, and Stoker.
Rehak, P. 2005 'The 'Sphinx' Head from the Cult Center at Mycenae'. British Archaeological Reports.
Not âOnly my reading of canon is correctâ or âInterpretations are subjective and all validâ but a secret third thing, âMore than one interpretation can be valid but thereâs a reason your English teacher had you cite quotes and examples in your papers, you have to have a strong argument that your interpretation is actually supported by the text or it is just wrong and Iâm fine with telling you itâs wrong, actually.â
If the text says the curtains are blue you can argue about what that means; but if youâre going to claim theyâre actually yellow youâd better have a really good argument.
Fandom has such unresolved mommy/daddy issues about authors. If you apply a little reading comprehension skills to my original post youâll see I didnât say anything at all about the author. You guys always make âinterpretationâ about your beef with the author. Youâre all obsessed with the author. This post is just about deciphering what is there in canon. Figuring out what is being communicated by the canon itself with all the words and images and basic formal elements that are there in canon. Thatâs all itâs about. It really doesnât matter if the author intentionally put all those things there in a pattern that might support the idea that this one characterâs queer. Thatâs not what this is about. What matters is if you can compellingly argue thereâs a pattern of evidence there. Or not. Everyone is conspiring together to make me go insane still adding shit about authorial intent on my post.
I don't want to reblog the original post where these tags were attached (op screenshot and tags screenshot are two different people), but...wow. These are such bad takes. And I have thoughts about it under a cut due to discussing sexual violence.
Iit's interesting in a movie that is literally about rape, these people can only read the horror of that if Nikki is actually 'aromantic' (rather than simply not interested, or even interested but hasn't consented). I think this has finally made something click in my mind with what is so frustrating to read from these kind of people about romance & love. They still see women as passive vessels w/o autonomy, and perhaps that internal misogyny is why so many young (presumably straight) women and girls would rather identify as aromantic rather than sexual. Women inside heterosexual relationships are, perhaps, willing receivers of rape. I'm having a hard time not seeing that subtext here.
Because I think the real horror of the movie to me is that both Real!Nikki and Freaky!Nikki are victims of Bear's entitlement. My read of the movie is that Bear, being obsessed and entitled, does not understand love. He only understands possession. So when he makes the wish, the love that he receives is warped. And when he becomes uninterested because it's inconvenient and not truly Nikki, Freaky!Nikki becomes desperate and more erratic, and then violent. Both Real!Nikki and Freaky!Nikki know Bear doesn't truly love Nikki. This is why I find the on screen rape a compelling scene - Freaky!Nikki is passive and performing. She just wants Bear to feel pleased with her, she loves him "more than anyone in the whole world" even herself. And then the following scene, with Nikki in the corner upset, I think is very intentional in it's word choices. Freaky!Nikki doesn't want to upset Bear, because she loves him. Freaky!Nikki also doesn't feel the love is mutual, because it isn't. Real!Nikki wants to be far away from Bear, because she feels violated. I think all of this is happening at once.
Which is why the tags are so frustrating. Nikki does love Bear. They are established as long time friends. Bear doesn't care. Bear wants something specific and self serving from Nikki. The scene about Bear saying "isn't it the same thing" is clearly not about Nikki being uninterested in love. She even says she wants to feel love, so she can write about love better. That scene is about how Bear does not understand love. He sees love as a romantic montage where the woman he wants is his manic pixie dream girl. He can't see the value in the real love Nikki has for him, as a friend. He doesn't care about the love Nikki has for anyone else in her life (Sarah, Ian, herself), because he takes that away, too.
This to me is more upsetting to read than dudes being like "Bear isn't a villain, everyone is so hard on him" or w/e. Because this movie is an allegory for rape from start to finish, and the trauma women experience from that. To say the horror comes from "amatonormativity" says to me that women in relationships are not capable of being raped. How disturbing to have that take away after this movie, when it's quite a simple movie that doesn't hide it's premise.
Hey, man, c'mere. Listen. Get in real close, this is important.
You're gonna make stuff again. You're gonna make stuff you're proud of. You're gonna make stuff you're excited to share. You're going to feel that overwhelming drive to create, not just the frantic I want to want to you're stuck in now. You're going to have awesome ideas, and you're going to make them into reality. You're going to create again. You're still an artist. You're still a writer. You're still home to the same passion you had before. You'll find it again. It's not gone. It's just resting. Let it rest. You're going to make stuff again. I promise.
Low-key hate that men think that âinterest in ancient writings and ancient Romeâ is a stereotypically male trait, as if women donât make up half of history undergrads.
Just because bro podcasters froth over âMeditationsâ and video games like Rome: Total War and Civ 5 and shit were marketed to boys, doesnât mean the average man has a stronger interest in or understanding of ancient history than the average woman.
Actually I fully admit Iâm not in touch with what the average woman or average man does or does not know, but I donât believe that history, even ancient history, is the domain of men.
amandla
theartofmadeline
stormborns
izzy806
