What Are the Theories About the Significance of Cave Art and the Venus Figurines?

Prehistoric statuettes depicting women

A Venus figurine is any Upper Palaeolithic statuette portraying a woman, usually carved in the round.^[1] Almost have been unearthed in Europe, just others take been found every bit far away as Siberia, and distributed across much of Eurasia.

Most date from the Gravettian period (26,000–21,000 years agone).^[ane] However, findings are not limited to this menses; for example, the Venus of Hohle Fels dates back at least 35,000 years to the Aurignacian era, and the Venus of Monruz dates back about 11,000 years to the Magdalenian. Such figurines were carved from soft stone (such every bit steatite, calcite or limestone), bone or ivory, or formed of clay and fired. The latter are amidst the oldest ceramics known to historians. In total, over 200 such figurines are known;^[ii] about all of minor size, between about iii and 40 cm (one.2 and 15.7 in) in top.^[iii] These figurines are recognised as some of the primeval works of prehistoric art.

Almost have wide hips and legs that taper to a bespeak. Arms and feet are frequently absent, and the head is usually pocket-size and faceless. Diverse figurines exaggerate the abdomen, hips, breasts, thighs, or vulva, although many institute examples exercise not reflect these typical characteristics. Depictions of hairstyles tin be detailed, and especially in Siberian examples, clothing or tattoos may exist indicated.^[four]

The original cultural meaning and purpose of these artefacts is not known. It has ofttimes 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 accept been seen as religious figures,^[5] an expression of health and fertility, grandmother goddesses, or every bit self-depictions by female artists.^[6]

History of discovery [edit]

The Vénus impudique, which was the figurine that gave the whole category its name, was the offset Palaeolithic sculptural representation of a woman to exist discovered in modern times. It was found in 1864 by Paul Hurault, 8th Marquis de Vibraye at Laugerie-Basse in the Vézère valley. This valley is 1 of the many of import Stone Age sites in and around the commune of Les Eyzies-de-Tayac-Sireuil in Dordogne, southwestern France. The figurines were by and large discovered in settlement contexts, both in open-air sites and caves.^[1] The Magdalenian Venus from Laugerie-Basse is headless, footless, armless, and displays a strongly emphasised female reproductive organization.^[7]

Four years later, Salomon Reinach published an commodity about a group of soapstone figurines from the caves of Balzi Rossi. The famous Venus of Willendorf was excavated in 1908 from a loess deposit in the Danube valley located in Austria. Since then, hundreds of like figurines have been discovered from the Pyrenees Mountains to the plains of Siberia.^{[ citation needed ]}

In September 2008, archaeologists from the University of Tübingen discovered a vi cm (2.4 in) figurine carved from a mammoth'southward tusk. This figurine was afterward called the Venus of Hohle Fels and can exist dated to at least 35,000 years ago. Information technology represents the earliest known sculpture of this type and the primeval known piece of work of figurative art.^[viii]

Proper noun [edit]

Upper Palaeolithic female figurines are collectively described equally "Venus figurines" in reference to the Roman goddess of beauty Venus. The name was starting time used in the mid-nineteenth century by the Marquis de Vibraye, who discovered an ivory figurine and named it La Vénus impudique or Venus Impudica ("immodest Venus").^[nine] The Marquis and so contrasted the ivory figurine to the Aphrodite Of Knidos, a Greco-Roman sculpture depicting Venus covering her naked torso with both her hands.^[9] In the early 20th century, the general conventionalities among scholars was that the figurines represent an ancient ideal of beauty. Since their discovery, considerable diversity in stance amongst archeologists and in paleoanthropological literature has arisen every bit to the function and significance of the figures.^[10] Most scholars that have differing opinions on the purpose of the figurines, such as anthropologist Randall White, also disapprove of the "Venus" proper name every bit a result.^[11]

The use of the name is metaphorical as there is no link between the ancient figurines and the Roman goddess Venus; 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 almost of the figurines. In particular, emotionally charged primary and secondary sexual characteristics, such every bit, the breasts, stomachs and buttocks.^[12] The term has been criticised for being a reflection of mod Western ideas rather than reflecting the behavior of the sculptures' original owners, just the original names are unknown as well, and so the term Venus has persisted.^[13]

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 a mother goddess.^[14] The female figures are a part of Upper Palaeolithic art, specifically the category of Palaeolithic art known as portable art.

Effigy details [edit]

The majority of Venus figurines are depictions of women, and follow artistic conventions of the times. Almost of the figurines display the same torso 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 effigy to be abstracted to the betoken of simplicity. The heads are often of relatively small size and devoid of particular. Some may correspond pregnant women, while others show no indication of pregnancy.^[16]

The Venus of Willendorf and the Venus of Laussel (a rock relief rather than a figurine) carry traces of having been externally covered in red ochre. The significance of this is not clear, but is traditionally assumed to be religious or ritual in nature. Some human bodies from the Palaeolithic era are plant similarly covered, so it is assumed this colour had a significant meaning in their culture even though we practise not know what.^[17]

All more often than not accepted Palaeolithic female figurines are from the Upper Palaeolithic. Although they were originally generally considered office of the Aurignacian civilization, the majority are now associated with the Gravettian and Solutrean cultures.^[xviii] In these periods, the more than rotund figurines are predominant. Within the Magdalenian cultures, the forms become effectively with more item and the styling of said figures started to become similar within areas of shut contact.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Interpretation [edit]

Despite being thought as one of the near 'fertile sources of debate in all of archaeology', Venus figurines appear to be relatively unstudied as a whole.^[11] The consequences of this is that they accept fallen victim to generalised stereotypes that fail to acknowledge morphological variation and differing contexts.^[11]

Nevertheless, there has nonetheless been many differing interpretations of the figurines since their discovery^[ane] - one of which comes from Helen Benigni. In her book, Emergence of the Goddess, she argues that the consistency in design of these featureless, large-breasted, often meaning figures throughout a broad region and over a long period of time suggests they represent an classic of a female Supreme Creator. Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age inhabitants likely connected women every bit creators innately tied to the cycles of nature. Through this, it was believed that women's birth and menstrual cycles aligned with lunar cycles and tides.^[19]

One interpretation came from McCoid and McDermott who suggested that because of the way these figures are depicted, such every bit the large breasts and lack of feet and faces, these statues were made by women looking at their ain bodies. They propose that women during the menstruation would not have had access to mirrors to maintain authentic proportions. This theory as well provides an caption equally to why many of the Venus figures practise not have faces or heads, as the creators would demand mirrors to do and then. However, Michael Due south. Bisson critiqued this theory by suggesting that alternatives, such as puddles, could have been used as mirrors.^[20]

It has been suggested that they may be a sign of an earlier prevalence of steatopygia, now associated principally to women of certain African or Andamanese ancestry. Still the Venuses practise not authorize 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 bending of almost ninety degrees merely.^[21]

Some other modern interpretation, providing an explanation for visible weight variety amongst the figurines, comes from Johnson et al.^[22] Here, they debate that differences in the statues tin can be said to relate to human adaption to climatic change. This is because figurines that are seen to be obese or pregnant originate to the before fine art from 38,000 to 14,000 BP - a catamenia where nutritional stress arose as a result of falling temperatures.^[22] Accordingly, they constitute a correlation between an increase in altitude from glacial fronts and a decrease in obesity of the figurines. This was justified as survival and reproduction, in glacial, colder areas, required sufficient diet and, consequently, over-nourished woman may have been seen as the platonic of beauty in these areas.^[22]

Later female figurines and continuity [edit]

All part of the Neolithic 'Venus figurines' tradition, the arable breasts and hips of these figurines suggest links to fertility and procreation.

Some scholars propose a direct continuity betwixt Palaeolithic female figurines and later examples of female depictions from the Neolithic or Bronze Age.^[25]

A female person figurine which has 'no applied 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, fifty-fifty if archaeological testify suggests information technology was produced after the chief 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 attain conclusions as to whether the fine art piece institute tin be defined equally a Venus figurine or not. For example, ceramic figurines from the late ceramic Neolithic may be accustomed every bit Venus figurines, while rock figurines from later on periods are not. This is a matter of ongoing debate given the stiff similarity betwixt many figurines from the Palaeolithic, Neolithic and beyond. A reworked endocast of a brachiopod from effectually 6000 BCE in Norway has been identified as a late Venus figurine.^[26]

This means that a given female figurine may or may not be classified equally a Venus effigy past any given archaeologist, regardless of its date, though most archaeologists disqualify figurines which engagement subsequently than the Palaeolithic, fifty-fifty though their purpose could have been the same.^{[ citation needed ]}

Notable figurines [edit]

Name	Age (approx.)	Location	Cloth
Venus of Tan-Tan (disputed)	300,000–500,000	Tan-Tan, Morocco	Quartzite
Venus of Berekhat Ram (disputed)	230,000–280,000	Lake Ram, Golan Heights	Scoria
Venus of Hohle Fels	35,000–40,000	Swabian Alb, Germany	mammoth ivory
Venus of Galgenberg	xxx,000	Lower Republic of austria	serpentine rock
Venus of Dolní Věstonice	27,000–31,000	Moravia, Czechia	ceramic
Venus of Mauern	27,000	Mauern, Germany	limestone
Venus of Laussel	25,000	Southern France	limestone, simply a relief
Venus of Lespugue	24,000–26,000	French Pyrenees	ivory
Venus of Willendorf	24,000–26,000	Lower Republic of austria	limestone
Venus of Brassempouy	23,000–25,000	Brassempouy, France	ivory
Venus of Petřkovice	23,000	Silesia, Czech Republic	hematite
Venus figurines of Mal'ta	23,000	Irkutsk Oblast, Russia	ivory
Venuses of Buret'	20,000–21,000	Irkutsk Oblast, Russia	ivory, serpentine rock
Venus of Moravany	23,000	Moravany nad Váhom, Slovakia	mammoth ivory
Venus figurines of Kostenki	20,000–25,000	Kostyonki–Borshchyovo, Russia	ivory
Venus of Savignano	20,000–25,000	Savignano sul Panaro, Italia	serpentine stone
Venus figurines of Gagarino	xx,000–21,000	Lipetsk Oblast, Russia	ivory
Venus figurines of Balzi Rossi	18,000–25,000	Ventimiglia, Italy	ivory, soapstone, serpentine, chlorite
Vénus impudique	sixteen,000	Laugerie-Basse, France	ivory
Venus of Waldstetten	fifteen,000	Waldstetten, Germany	Quartzite
Venus of Eliseevichi	15,000	Bryansk, Russia	ivory
Venus figurines of Zaraysk	14,000–xx,000	Zaraysk, Russia	ivory
Venus figurines of Gönnersdorf	11,500–xv,000	Neuwied, Frg	ivory, antler, bone
Venus figurines of Petersfels	11,500–15,000	Engen, Germany	black jet
Venus of Monruz	xi,000	Neuchâtel, Switzerland	black jet

Encounter as well [edit]

• Listing of Stone Age art
• Matriarchal religion
• When God Was A Woman
• Feminine dazzler platonic

Notes [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b c d} Fagan, Brian M., Beck, Charlotte, "Venus Figurines", The Oxford Companion to Archæology, 1996, Oxford University Printing, ISBN 9780195076189 pp. 740–741
2. ^ Holloway
3. ^ Fagan, 740
4. ^ "Wear of figurines may be record of Ice Age tribes' skills". old.mail-gazette.com . Retrieved 2019-11-13 .
5. ^ Beck, 207-208
6. ^ William Haviland, Harald Prins, Dana Walrath, Bunny McBride, Anthropology: The Human Claiming, 13th edition, 2010, Cengage Learning, ISBN 0495810843, 9780495810841,google books; Cook; Beck, 205-208
7. ^ White, Randall (December 2008). "The Women of Brassempouy: A Century of Enquiry and Interpretation" (PDF). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. thirteen (4): 250–303. doi:10.1007/s10816-006-9023-z. S2CID 161276973.
8. ^ Cressey, Daniel (13 May 2009). "Ancient Venus rewrites history books". Nature. News. doi:10.1038/news.2009.473.
9. ^ ^{a b} Brook, 202-203
10. ^ Dixson, Alan F.; Dixson, Barnaby J. (2012-01-03). "Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility or Attractiveness?". Journal of Anthropology. 2011: 1–11. doi:ten.1155/2011/569120.
11. ^ ^{a b c} White, Randall (2006-11-30). "The Women of Brassempouy: A Century of Inquiry and Interpretation". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 13 (4): 250–303. doi:10.1007/s10816-006-9023-z. ISSN 1072-5369. S2CID 161276973.
12. ^ Soffer, O.; Adovasio, J. One thousand.; Hyland, D. C. (2000-08-01). "The "Venus" Figurines: Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Condition in the Upper Paleolithic". Current Anthropology. 41 (4): 511–537. doi:10.1086/317381. ISSN 0011-3204. S2CID 162026727.
13. ^ Dr. Beth Harris & Dr. Steven Zucker (27 May 2012). Nude Woman (Venus of Willendorf), c. 28,000-25,000 B.C.East. (youtube video). Smarthistory, Art History at Khan Academy. Consequence occurs at 0:21. Archived from the original on 2021-11-17. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
14. ^ Soffer, O.; Adovasio, J. Yard.; Hyland, D. C. (Summer 2000). "The "Venus" Figurines: Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Condition in the Upper Paleolithic". Current Anthropology. 41 (4): 511–537. doi:10.1086/317381. ISSN 0011-3204. S2CID 162026727.
15. ^ The body used is the local loess, with only traces of dirt; there is no trace of surface burnishing or applied paint. Vandiver, P. B.; Soffer, O.; Klima, B.; Svoboda, J. (1989). "The Origins of Ceramic Technology at Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia". Science. 246 (4933): 1002–1008. Bibcode:1989Sci...246.1002V. doi:x.1126/science.246.4933.1002. PMID 17806391. S2CID 138977052.
16. ^ Sandars, 29; Fagan, 740-741; Cook; Beck, 203-213, who analyses attempts to classify the figures.
17. ^ Sandars, 28
18. ^ Fagan, 740-741; Beck, 203
19. ^ Benigni, Helen, ed. 2013. The Mythology of Venus: Aboriginal Calendars and Archaeoastronomy. Lanham, Maryland : University Press of America.
20. ^ McDermott, Leroy (1996). "Cocky-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines". Electric current Anthropology. 37 (two): 227–275. doi:10.1086/204491. JSTOR 2744349. S2CID 144914396.
21. ^ Softpedia, Stefan Anitei (four April 2007). "What is Steatopygia?". news.softpedia.com/ . Retrieved 4 September 2016.
22. ^ ^{a b c} Johnson, Richard J (1 December 2020). "Upper Paleolithic Figurines Showing Women with Obesity may Represent Survival Symbols of Climatic change". Obesity a Inquiry Journal. 29 (1): 11–15. doi:10.1002/oby.23028. PMC7902358. PMID 33258218.
23. ^ "Site officiel du musée du Louvre". cartelfr.louvre.fr.
24. ^ "Figure féminine - Les Musées Barbier-Mueller". www.musee-barbier-mueller.org.
25. ^ Walter Burkert, Homo Necans (1972) 1983:78, with extensive bibliography, including P.J. Ucko, who contested the identification with female parent goddesses and argues for a plurality of meanings, in Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Arab republic of egypt and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Material from the Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greece (1968).
26. ^ Tidemann, Grethe. "Venus fra Svinesund". Uniforum. Academy of Oslo. Retrieved eleven December 2014.

References [edit]

• Beck, Margaret, in Ratman, Alison East. (ed.), Reading the Trunk: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, 2000, University of Pennsylvania Printing, ISBN 0812217098, 9780812217094, google books
• Cook, Jill, Venus figurines, Video with Dr Jill Cook, Curator of European Prehistory, British Museum
• Fagan, Brian 1000., Beck, Charlotte, "Venus Figurines", The Oxford Companion to Archeology, 1996, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195076184, 9780195076189, google books
• Sandars, Nancy K. (1968), Prehistoric Art in Europe. Penguin: Pelican, at present Yale, History of Art. (nb 1st ed.)

Further reading [edit]

• Abramova, Z. (1962). Paleolitičeskoe iskusstvo na territorii SSSR, Moskva : Akad. Nauk SSSR, Inst. Archeologii
• Abramova, Z. (1995). 50'Fine art paléolithique d'Europe orientale et de Sibérie., Grenoble: Jérôme Millon.
• Cohen, C. (2003). La femme des origines - images de la femme dans la préhistoire occidentale, Belin - Herscher. ISBN two-7335-0336-7
• Conard, Nicholas J. (2009). "A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany". Nature. 459 (7244): 248–252. Bibcode:2009Natur.459..248C. doi:x.1038/nature07995. PMID 19444215. S2CID 205216692.
• Cook, Jill. (2013). Water ice Historic period Art: the Inflow of the Mod Mind; London: British Museum Press. ISBN 978-0-7141-2333-2
• Delporte, Henri. (1993). L'image de la femme dans l'art préhistorique, éd. Picard. (ISBN two-7084-0440-7)
• Dixson, Alan F.; Dixson, Barnaby J. (2011). "Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility or Attractiveness?". Journal of Anthropology. 2011: one–eleven. doi:10.1155/2011/569120.
• Gvozdover, K. (1995).: Fine art of the mammoth hunters: the finds from Avdeevo, (Oxbow Monograph 49), Oxford: Oxbow.
• Power, C. (2004). "Women in prehistoric art". In K. Berghaus (ed.), New Perspectives in Prehistoric Fine art. Westport, CT & London: Praeger, pp. 75–104.
• Schlesier/, Karl H.; Soffer, O.; Adovasio, J. Grand.; Hyland, and D. C. (2001). "More on the "Venus" Figurines". Current Anthropology. 42 (iii): 410–412. doi:10.1086/320478. S2CID 162218369.
• Soffer, O.; Adovasio, J. M.; Hyland, D. C. (2000). "The "Venus" Figurines". Electric current Anthropology. 41 (four): 511–537. doi:ten.1086/317381. S2CID 162026727.
• Rau, S., Naumann D., Barth M., Mühleis Y., Bleckmann C. (2009): Eiszeit: Kunst und Kultur, Thorbecke. ISBN 978-3-7995-0833-ix

External links [edit]

• Venus figures from the Stone Age - with excellent pictures of most of the figurines
• Undergraduate thesis, University of Texas, PDF
• Christopher Witcombe, "Analysis of the Venus of Willendorf"
• (Canadian Museum of Civilisation) The Balzi Rossi Figurines

freitasnothestal.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurine

Share this post