AVenus figurine is anyUpper Palaeolithicstatue portraying a woman, usually carved inthe round.[1] Most have been unearthed inEurope, but others have been found as far away asSiberia and distributed across much ofEurasia. The island ofSardinia located on the east side of Italy, had a different version, most famously called Venus of Macomer and other Mother Goddess figurines were found. These statuettes, which date from the Neolithic period, share stylistic and iconographic similarities with the Upper Paleolithic Venus figurines found elsewhere, though they are often identified as representations of a "Mother Goddess" linked to fertility and the afterlife.
Most date from theGravettian period (26,000–21,000 years ago).[1] However, findings are not limited to this period; for example, theVenus of Hohle Fels dates back at least 35,000 years to theAurignacian era, and theVenus of Monruz dates back about 11,000 years to theMagdalenian, and theCatalhoyuk figurine[2], 8000 years old. Such figurines were carved from soft stone (such assteatite,calcite orlimestone), bone or ivory, or formed ofclay and fired. The latter are among the oldestceramics known to historians. In total, over 200 such figurines are known;[3] virtually all of modest size, between about 3 and 40 cm (1.2 and 15.7 in) in height.[4] These figurines are recognised as some of the earliest works ofprehistoric art.
Most have wide hips and legs that taper to a point. Arms and feet are often absent, and the head is usually small and faceless. Various figurines exaggerate the abdomen,hips,breasts, thighs, orvulva, although many found examples do not reflect these typical characteristics. Depictions of hairstyles can be detailed, and clothing or tattoos may be indicated.[5]
The original cultural meaning and purpose of these artefacts is not known. It has frequently been suggested that they may have served a ritual or symbolic function. There are widely varying and speculative interpretations of their use or meaning: they have been seen as religious figures,[6] an expression of health and fertility, grandmother goddesses, or as self-depictions by female artists.[7]
TheVénus impudique, which was the figurine that gave the whole category its name, was the first Palaeolithic sculptural representation of a woman to be discovered in modern times. It was found in 1864 byPaul Hurault, 8th Marquis de Vibraye atLaugerie-Basse in theVézère valley. This valley is one of the many importantStone Age sites in and around the commune ofLes Eyzies-de-Tayac-Sireuil inDordogne, southwesternFrance. The figurines were mostly discovered in settlement contexts, both in open-air sites and caves.[1] TheMagdalenian Venus fromLaugerie-Basse is headless, footless, armless, and displays a strongly emphasisedvulva.[8]
Four years later,Salomon Reinach published an article about a group ofsoapstone figurines from the caves ofBalzi Rossi. The famousVenus of Willendorf was excavated in 1908 from aloess deposit in theDanube valley located inAustria.[citation needed] Since then, hundreds of similar figurines have been discovered from thePyrenees Mountains to the plains ofSiberia.[9]
In September 2008, archaeologists from theUniversity of Tübingen discovered a 6 cm (2.4 in) figurine carved from amammoth's tusk. This figurine was later called theVenus of Hohle Fels and can be dated to at least 35,000 years ago. It represents the earliest known sculpture of this type and the earliest known work offigurative art.[10]
.jpg)
Upper Palaeolithic female figurines are collectively described as "Venus figurines" in reference to theRoman goddess of beautyVenus. The name was first used in the mid-nineteenth century by theMarquis de Vibraye, who discovered an ivory figurine and named itLa Vénus impudique orVenus Impudica ("immodest Venus").[11] The Marquis then contrasted the ivory figurine to theAphrodite Of Knidos, a Greco-Roman sculpture depicting Venus covering her naked body with both her hands.[11] In the early 20th century, the general belief among scholars was that the figurines represent an ancient ideal of beauty. Since their discovery, considerable diversity in opinion amongstarchaeologists and inpalaeoanthropological literature has arisen as to the function and significance of the figures.[12] Most scholars that have differing opinions on the purpose of the figurines, such as anthropologist Randall White, also disapprove of the "Venus" name as a result.[13]
The use of the name is metaphorical as there is no link between the ancient figurines and the Roman goddessVenus; although they have been interpreted as representations of a primordial female goddess. This perception is said to have derived from the fact that attention is directed to certain features common to most of the figurines, in particular emotionally charged primary and secondary sexual characteristics such as the breasts, stomachs and buttocks.[14] The term has been criticised for being a reflection of modern Western ideas rather than reflecting the beliefs of the sculptures' original owners, but the original names are unknown as well, so the term Venus has persisted.[15]
Like many prehistoric artefacts, the exact cultural meaning of these figures may never be known. Archaeologists speculate, however, that they may be symbolic of security and success,fertility, or amother goddess.[16] The female figures are a part of Upper Palaeolithic art, specifically the category of Palaeolithic art known asportable art.
The majority of Venus figurines are depictions of women, and follow artistic conventions of the times. Most of the figurines display the same body shape with the widest point at the abdomen and the female reproductive organs exaggerated. Oftentimes other details, such as the head and limbs, are neglected or absent which leads the figure to be abstracted to the point of simplicity. The heads are often of relatively small size and devoid of detail. Some may represent pregnant women, while others show no indication of pregnancy.[18]
TheVenus of Willendorf and theVenus of Laussel (arock relief rather than a figurine) bear traces of having been externally covered inred ochre. The significance of this is not clear, but is traditionally assumed to be religious or ritual in nature. Some human bodies from thePalaeolithic era are found similarly covered, so it is assumed this colour had a significant meaning in their culture even though we do not know what.[19]
All generally accepted Palaeolithic female figurines are from theUpper Palaeolithic. Although they were originally mostly considered part of theAurignacian culture, the majority are now associated with theGravettian andSolutrean cultures.[20] In these periods, the more rotund figurines are predominant. Within theMagdalenian cultures, the forms become finer with more detail and the styling of said figures started to become similar within areas of close contact.[citation needed]
Despite being thought as one of the most 'fertile sources of debate in all of archaeology', Venus figurines appear to be relatively understudied as a whole.[13] A consequence of this is that they are subject to generalised stereotypes that minimize morphological variation and differing contexts.[13] Nevertheless, there have been many differing interpretations of the figurines since their discovery.[1]
McCoid and McDermott suggested that because of the way these figures are depicted, such as the large breasts and lack of feet and faces, these statues were made by women looking at their own bodies. They state that women during the period would not have had access tomirrors to maintain accurate proportions or depict the faces or heads of the figurines. The theory remains difficult to prove or disprove, and Michael S. Bisson suggested that alternatives, such as puddles, could have been used as mirrors.[21]
It has also been suggested[by whom?] that the size and shape of the figures makes them suitable for holding throughchildbirth.
It has been suggested that they may be a sign of an earlier prevalence ofsteatopygia, now associated principally to women of certain African orAndamanese ancestry.However the Venuses do not qualify as steatopygian, since they exhibit an angle of approximately 120 degrees between the back and the buttocks, while steatopygia is diagnosed by modern medical standards at an angle of about 90 degrees only.[22]
Another modern interpretation, providing an explanation for visible weight variety amongst the figurines, comes from Johnson et al.[23] Here, they argue that differences in the statues can be said to relate to human adaption to climate change. This is because figurines that are seen to be heavier or pregnant originate to the earlier art from 38,000 to 14,000 BP - a period where nutritional stress arose as a result of falling temperatures.[23] Accordingly, they found a correlation between an increase in distance from glacial fronts and a decrease in obesity of the figurines. This was justified as survival and reproduction, in glacial, colder areas, required sufficient nutrition and, consequently, over-nourished woman may have been seen as the ideal of beauty in these areas.[23]
In "The Mythology of Venus Ancient Calendars and Archaeoastronomy," Helen Benigni argues that the consistency in design of these featureless, large-breasted, often pregnant figures throughout a wide region and over a long period of time suggests they represent an archetype of a femaleSupreme Creator.[24] Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age inhabitants likely connected women as creators innately tied to the cycles of nature.[25][clarification needed]
Some scholars suggest a direct continuity between Palaeolithic female figurines and later examples of female depictions from theNeolithic orBronze Age.[28]
A female figurine which has "no practical use and is portable" and has the common elements of a Venus figurine (a strong accent or exaggeration of female sex-linked traits, and the lack of complete lower limbs) may be considered to be a Venus figurine, even if archaeological evidence suggests it was produced after the main Palaeolithic period. Some figurines matching this definition originate from the Neolithic era and into the Bronze Age. The period and location in which a figurine was produced helps guide archaeologists to reach conclusions as to whether the art piece found can be defined as a Venus figurine or not. For example, ceramic figurines from the late ceramic Neolithic may be accepted as Venus figurines, while stone figurines from later periods are not. This is a matter of ongoing debate given the strong similarity between many figurines from the Palaeolithic, Neolithic and beyond. A reworkedendocast of abrachiopod from around 6,000 BCE in Norway has been identified as a late Venus figurine.[29]
This means that a given female figurine may or may not be classified as a Venus figure by any given archaeologist, regardless of its date, though most archaeologists disqualify figurines which date later than the Palaeolithic, even though their purpose could have been the same.[citation needed]
.jpg){kind=link}