upvote
If you read the "Manufacture" section you will find this:

> Wulf Hein and Kurt Wehrberger conducted an experimental replication with the kinds of stone tools available at the time. Removing the base of the tusk took ten hours. The body was carved with a steep-fronted scraper; the burins requiring regular resharpening. Several tools were needed to separate the torso from the insides of the arms while shaping the head and shoulders, which involved difficult cutting across the grain of the ivory, often requiring two hands on the tool. The basic shaping is estimated to have taken around 200 hours, and in total the recreation likely took more than 370 hours.[d] Jill Cook, Curator of Palaeolithic collections at the British Museum, suggests that "unless the sculpture was created slowly at odd moments over several months, someone as skilled as an artist may have been excused from other subsistence tasks to work specially on this piece."[23]

Nearly a year of "full time" work at 40hrs/week went into this, so I do not think it was simply a children's toy.

EDIT: Not a year, actually just over 2 months.

reply
> > The basic shaping is estimated to have taken around 200 hours, and in total the recreation likely took more than 370 hours.

> Nearly a year of "full time" work at 40hrs/week went into this

Sorry, I think you may be mistaken? From the section you quote, it looks like it's about 370 hours, or 9 weeks of full time effort. That's still a lot, but certainly not nearly a year.

reply
I can also imagine that someone with a lot of practice might be significantly faster than some unskilled researchers.

I also don't think it rules out it being something for a child. It's not so rare to do big projects for you kids even today, over many evenings and weekends. And when you don't have any books to read or screens to watch...

reply
It could also be passed down through multiple siblings and possibly generations. And possibly the creation of it was itself a pasttime.
reply
Ya, I tend to agree. I think I personally have spent 9 weeks of effort on gifts for 2-3 people in my lifetime, and I don't even have kids yet.
reply
That’s because you don’t have kids yet.
reply
Yes you are right not sure how I flubbed that one. Made an edit in my comment.
reply
Too busy thinking about sex and religion.
reply
>Nearly a year of "full time" work at 40hrs/week went into this

You uh, missed a decimal point there. A year at 40 hours/week would be 2000 hours, not 200. The quote "unless the sculpture was created slowly at odd moments over several months" seems accurate in light of that, but rather odd: why wouldn't it be created slowly at odd moments over several months, or even years? Was prehistoric man lacking in free time? The article eventually continues: "why would a community living on the edge of subsistence, whose primary concerns were finding food, keeping that fire going, protecting children from predators, allow someone to spend so much time away from those tasks?" Keeping a fire going or protecting from predators are tasks with rather a lot of down time. I can easily imagine a person doing either of those while also whittling on a piece of bone. It's also just ridiculous to assume that subsistence living meant being constantly on the verge of starvation. Sometimes times were bad, and many people died. Then later, times were good, food could be obtained easily, and plenty of time would be left over for leisure tasks.

reply
Well, except for finger flutings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_fluting some of which were made by toddlers being held aloft to reach the ceiling.
reply