Venus figurines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Venus figurines is an umbrella term for a number of prehistoric statuettes of women sharing common attributes (many depicted as apparently obese or pregnant) from the Aurignacian or Gravettian period of the upper Palaeolithic, found from Western Europe to Siberia. These items were carved from soft stone (such as steatite, calcite or limestone), bone or ivory, or formed of clay and fired. The latter are among the oldest ceramics known. In total, over a hundred such figurines are known; virtually all of modest size, between 4 cm and 25 cm in height.

Contents 1 History of discovery 2 Description 3 Classification 4 Interpretation 5 See also 6 Gallery 7 Bibliography 8 References 9 External links

[edit] History of discovery

The first Upper Paleolithic representation of a woman was discovered about 1864 by the Marquis de Vibraye, at Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne), where initial archaeological surveys had already been undertaken; Vibraye named his find the Vénus impudique, a knowing contrast to the "modest" Venus Pudica Hellenistic type, the most famous of which is the Medici Venus. The Magdalenian "Venus" from Laugerie-Basse is headless, footless, armless but with a strongly incised vaginal opening.^[1] Another example of such a figure being discovered and recognised was the Venus of Brassempouy, found by Édouard Piette in 1894 (but not originally labelled as a "Venus"). Four years later, Salomon Reinach published a group of steatite figurines from the caves of Balzi Rossi. The famous Venus of Willendorf was excavated in 1908 in a loess deposit in the Danube valley, Austria. Since then, hundreds of similar figurines have been discovered from the Pyrenees to the plains of Siberia. They are collectively described as "Venus" figurines in reference to the Roman goddess of beauty, Venus, since the prehistorians of the early 20th century assumed they represented an ancient ideal of beauty. Early discourse on "Venus" figurines was coloured by concerns to identify the race being represented; since the late twentieth century controversy has shifted to the inappropriate invocation by contrast of an abandoned classical canon of beauty on the one hand and the steatopygous fascination of Sartje Baartman, the "Hottentot Venus" exhibited as a living ethnographic curiosity to connoisseurs in Paris early in the nineteenth century.^[2]

[edit] Description

The majority of the Venus figurines appear to be depictions of females that follow certain artistic conventions, on the lines of schematisation and stylisation. Most of them are roughly lozenge-shaped, with two tapering terminals at top (head) and bottom (legs) and the widest point in the middle (hips/belly). In some examples, certain parts of the human anatomy are exaggerated: abdomen, hips, breasts, thighs, vulva. In contrast, other anatomical details are neglected or absent, especially arms and feet. The heads are often of relatively small size and devoid of detail.

The question of the steatopygia of some of the figurines has led to numerous controversies. The issue was first raised by Édouard Piette, excavator of the Brassempouy figure and of several other examples from the Pyrenees. Some authors saw this feature as the depiction of an actual physical property, resembling the Khoisan tribe of southern Africa, while others interpreted it as a symbol of fertility and abundance. It must be noted in this context, that not all Palaeolithic female figurines are rotund or have exaggerated feminine features. Also, not all are devoid of facial features.

The Venus of Willendorf and the Venus of Laussel bear traces of having been externally covered in red ochre. The significance of this is not clear, but is normally assumed to be religious or ritual in nature.

All generally accepted Paleolithic female figurines are from the Upper Palaeolithic. Although they were originally mostly considered Aurignacian, the majority is now associated with the Gravettian and Solutrean. In these periods, the more rotund figurines are predominant. During the Magdalenian, the forms become finer with more detail; conventional stylization also develops.

[edit] Classification

A number of attempts to subdivide or classify the figurines have been made. One of the less controversial is that by Henri Delporte, simply based on geographic provenance^[3]. He distinguishes:

• the Venus figurines of the Pyrenees-Aquitaine group (Venus of Lespugue, of Laussel and of Brassempouy)
• the Venus figurines of the Mediterranean group (Venus of Savignano and of Balzi Rossi)
• the Venus figurines of the Rhine-Danube group (Venus of Willendorf and of Dolní Věstonice)
• the Venus figurines of the Russian group (Kostienki in Russia and Gagarino in Ukraine)
• the Venus figurines of the Siberian group (Mal'ta Venus, Bouret' Venus).

According to André Leroi-Gourhan, there are cultural connections between all these groups. He states that certain anatomical details suggest a shared Oriental origin, followed by a westward diffusion.^[4].

The absence of such figurines from the Iberian peninsula is curious. Only few and rather dubious examples have been reported, especially at El Pendo and La Pileta. The so-called Venus of Las Caldas from a cave near Oviedo is a Magdalenian antler carving. Although some scholars see it as a stylised female body with an animal head, it is probably a decorated atlatl-type device.

[edit] Interpretation

There are many interpretations of the figurines, often based on little argument or fact. Like many prehistoric artifacts, the cultural meaning of these figures may never be known. Archaeologists speculate, however, that they may be emblems of security and success, fertility icons, pornographic imagery, or even direct representations of a Great Goddess or Mother Goddess or various local goddesses. The female figures, as part of Upper Palaeolithic portable art, appear to have no practical use in the context of subsistence. They are mostly discovered in settlement contexts, both in open-air sites and caves; burial contexts are much rarer.

At Gagarino in Russia, seven Venus figurines were found in a hut of 5 m diameter; they a have been interpreted as apotropaic amulets, connected with the occupants of the dwelling. At Mal'ta, near Lake Baikal, figurines are only known from the left sides of huts. The figurines were probably not hidden or secret amulets, but rather were displayed to be seen by all (a factor that may explain their wide geographic spread).

The apparent obesity of the figures strongly implies a focus on fertility as, at the time of their construction, human society had not yet invented farming and did not have ready access to rich or plentiful foodstuffs. An image of excess weight may have symbolized a yearning for plenty and security. Nevertheless, the widespread theories concerning a possibly fertility cult or a Mother Goddess are entirely speculative and cannot be scientifically evaluated.

Recently, two very ancient stone objects (between 200,000 and 300,000 years old) have been interpreted as attempts at representing females. One, the Venus of Berekhat Ram was discovered on the Golan Heights, the other, the Venus of Tan-Tan in Morocco. Both pieces remain controversial. In any case, both are at best very cursorily and marginally carved, at worst simply natural, their anthropomorphic appearance being coincidence.

Some scholars and popular theorists suggest a direct continuity between the Palaeolithic female figurines, and later examples of female depictions from the Neolithic or even the Bronze Age.^[5] Such views have been contested on numerous grounds, not least the general absence of such depictions during the intervening Mesolithic.

[edit] See also

• Figurine
• Pre-historic art
• Venus of Dolní Věstonice (ceramic, about 27,000 to 31,000 years old)
• Venus of Lespugue (ivory, about 27,000 years old)
• Venus of Willendorf (limestone, about 24,000 to 26,000 years old)
• Venus of Moravany (ivory, about 24,800 years old)
• Venus of Brassempouy (ivory, about 22,000 years old)
• Venus of Laussel (limestone relief, about 20,000 years old)
• Mal'ta Venus (ivory, about 23,000 years old)
• Venus of Berekhat Ram

[edit] Gallery

Examples of Palaeolithic Venus figurines

Reconstruction of the Venus of Lespugue	Venus of Laussel	Venus of Dolní Věstonice (ceramic)
Venus of Savignano	stylised Venus of Bouret'	Mal'ta Venus

[edit] Bibliography

• C. Cohen : La femme des origines - images de la femme dans la préhistoire occidentale, Belin - Herscher (2003) ISBN 2-7335-0336-7
• H. Delporte, L'image de la femme dans l'art préhistorique, éd. Picard, 1993 (ISBN 2-7084-0440-7)
• This article was initially translated from the Wikipedia article Vénus paléolithique, specifically from this version.

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Analysis of the Venus of Willendorf, Christopher Witcombe
• Images of women in ancient art, Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe
• Palaeolithic figurines of Balzi Rossi
• Venus figures from the Stone Age
• Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines, LeRoy McDermott
• Venus figures from the Stone Age
• Images of women in ancient art
• Venus from Cévennes National Park
• Venus figurines through time - the mother goddess
• Amulet and "Suspension Hole" varieties, proto-Late Periods
• Picture Gallery of the Paleolithic (reconstructional palaeoethnology), Libor Balák at the Czech Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Archaeology in Brno, The Center for Paleolithic and Paleoethnological Research
• Paleolithische reproducties