Talk:Venus figurine

the Venus figurines maybe be the self-image of the women who created them?

I remember reading, in a basic first-year anthropology survey class, that the Venus figurines maybe be the self-image of the women who created them - "the body as seen by a woman looking down on herself". Is this a popular theory? It seemed dumb to me, surely they could see their reflection in water or something, or they could see what other women looked like...seems more like an assumption that prehistoric people weren't very bright. The quote is from "Toward Decolonizing Gender: Female Vision in the Upper Paleolithic" by Catherine Hodge McCoid and LeRoy D. McDermott, in American Anthropologist, June 1996. Adam Bishop 03:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article just says that "the body as seen by a woman looking down on herself" has almost exactly the same proportions as the figurine viewed from above. Therefore it's likely that the figurine was created by a woman who used her own body as a model.

Different cultures value different aesthetics. Cultures like ours place greater emphasis on realism or naturalism, and so use third-person models -- other people, reflections -- even for self-representation. The culture of these Paleolithic humans, if McCoid and McDermott are right, may have placed greater emphasis on symbolism and personal meaning, and so their sculptors may have used a first-person model of looking down on one's own body to make their self-portraits. Besides its cultural context, this aesthetic makes a lot of sense in the context of McCoid and McDermott's argument that the sculptors were not just women but pregnant women. To experience late-term pregnancy in a hostile and unforgiving environment, trying to keep up with the other members of your small nomadic tribe even as your growing belly slows you down and trips you up, preparing to undergo the painful, life-altering event that is natural childbirth (perhaps with the support of a midwife, perhaps alone) in a time when childbirth too often ended in death... well, you wouldn't give two figs about how other people saw you, but you would be doing one hell of a lot of self-reflection. So McCoid and McDermott's theory that these Paleolithic people (read: women) looked to their own bodies in sculpting their figures does NOT assume that were stupid, just that they were more interested in how they saw themselves than in how others saw them. 70.184.72.38 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

dunno, i think it is good to keep an open mind to the idea that other cultures might have had a radically different way of looking at the world than we have today. but on the other hand it seems like anthropology and human-evolution is absolutely swamped by people who try to give their own social ideas legitimacy by going out of their way to find old artifacts that MIGHT (with a lot of fantasy) jive with their theory. personally i think that if your views of 'the prehistory' have about ZERO historical or contemporary anthropological existence (there is not a single 'primitive tribe' that still does things your way) than you should admit you are just wildly speculating and fantasizing and not being very scientific Selena1981 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Adam Bishop: the academics' latest 'big' idea surely does imply that the Palaeolithic cultures which produced the female figures and figurines were subhumanly stupid. But what this in turn implies, I believe, is that the real idiots - both the academics for coming out with the idea and others for taking it seriously, even for a moment - are our modern adult selves.

An article which takes this view, and which also puts forward a new idea concerning the iconology of the Palaeolithic female figures and figurines (new for modern times, that is), has just been published here: http://www.goddess-pages.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=128

I'd be very interested to see people's comments on the article - Adam Bishop's in particular. (Nb. The article comes in two halves, the second half will be published in the journal's next edition.) MagicCamel 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well that was just a random thought I had a few years ago, concerning a class I took when I was young and dumb 8 years ago. Now I am inclined to agree with 70.184.72.38 up above, although I really don't have the training or expertise to have any meaningful opinion about the subject. That article is interesting, but it's just some guy speculating about one particular figure (much like us on this talk page). He's obviously not very good at linguistics, among other things, and has an amusing "ha ha, stupid academics" attitude. Adam Bishop 12:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this McCoid and LeRoy D. McDermott theory really deserves mention. Also, I don't think that it is saying that anyone was stupid. The first person perspect is right as the first person perspective, and there is no reason why one should not want to create statues from that perspective. By the way, these figures even exist in Joumon period Japan. They are intepretted as exentuating the reproductive nature of women (big breasts and hips). The lower legs are often quite thin so this fits well with the first person perspective theory and badly with the obesity theory.--Timtak (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting interpretation that should be cited and added to the article (it wasn't in there last time I looked at it), in the interpretations section. I don't buy that interpretation myself, but there are several sources that can be cited for it, so it should be included as part of the overall debate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Resolved

 – Discussion did not ensue.

I'm not understanding why this has been set to redirect to the plural form. Can someone explain the reasoning before I try to change anything back? Beginning 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No one seems to care. The probable reason is that the article is about a broad class of figurines; they are not particularly homogenous. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How about some pictures

Resolved

 – More photos have been added

I want to see a picture of the rest of the Venuses! The only article that seems to display a picture is that of the Venus of Willendorf--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Obesity was key to human survival

"Like many such artifacts, their true cultural meaning may never be known; however, given that at the time of their construction human society would not have the same tendency towards obesity as it has today (as foodstuffs, particularly those which are fattening, would have been scarce as farming had not yet been invented)"

Meat and fat is very calorific, so is honey, and gathered seeds also are not 'lite' snacks either. Obesity is not a problem but a boon in a society where there is no guaranteed food supply, see my discussion comment on the Venus of Willendorf for a simple calculation that shows that an obese woman with a BMI of about 36 just about has enough reserves to survive 3 month (about one winter) and so, the figurine could equally well be a model to remind women to be well prepared for the cold season. In other words, if people were as skinny back then as some people think, humans would have died out long ago, and there is a reason why so many people are fat nowadays -- we're built for it, our bodies gravitate towards it when there is plentiful supply of food -- which is why you hear much about diets, but see very few dieting sucesses, as the body itself views weightloss as a failure. Cinnamon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.218.135 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2006

Cinnamon, you make it sound like Paleolithic humans simply sat in their caves and hibernated through the cold season, living off their fat stores, when in fact they were nomadic peoples who continued to hunt throughout the winter. The evidence shows they followed herds of reindeer, bison, horse, and mammoth, which would have sustained them -- men and women both -- as well as provided them with warm clothing and shelter. Certainly it would be advantageous for them to have winter fat stores, too, but that hardly means they needed to be obese to make it to spring. 70.184.72.38 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Followed HERDS? IN WINTER??? ...No wonder your IP shows up as Tucson, Arizona. FYI: this stuff was found in *europe*. Try camping in snow for a couple of days, without microfibre, without lightweight titanium and polyester tents, etc etc - hell, actually, try it *with* all the gear provided by modern technology (you still won't last very long). The whole reason that people lived in caves is that, for about half the year, the elements really offer no other viable alternative. Aadieu (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this "fat survival" theory would need quite a lot of reputable research cited in order to be included. I've been studying anthropology for a long time, and cannot think of any solid material that would back this idea. Obesity is quite rare among extant hunter-gatherers and horitculturist societies. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's rare. That's the whole point! In modern terms, these gals depicted on the figurines are essentially "rich" and "high-status", probably the favoured daughters or wives of the tribe's chief or shaman. Having plenty of food available is a luxury, a sign of privilege for women in tribal cultures. Health (more than adequate nutrition = survival) and social status equal maximum reproductive success. Aadieu (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you've overlooked the extreme obesity of women (so called "steatopygia") common in many hunter-gatherer societies, like Khoisan, African Pygmies and Andamanese. This is exactly a "fat survival" strategy, for energy storage or sexual selection for high fertility. It's completely reasonable that in Paleolithic Europe, long before the advancement of agriculture, women also developed this strategy for the survival of offspring (or inherited from the human common ancestor), as depicted in the Venus figurines, either as real depiction or symbolic worship. Chakazul (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

the thing i find interesting about this whole discussion is how people will go out of their way to find excuses for how cavemen could not possibly have been fat: it was just a fantasy, it was extremely rare, it were pregnant instead of fat women, maybe they had strange genes only giving them a fat butt, etc etc. it seems like a lot of people just cannot rhyme the idea of a whole primitive tribe filled with (most of the time) fat people with this strong cultural image we have been presented with since our earliest childhood: of the 'fit thin caveman' running after wholly mammoths all day long, who represents a kind of lost paradise when our ancestors were 'the way nature intended us' Selena1981 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Another image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Venus_da_Vinci.jpg --Snek01 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clay -> ceramics

Resolved

 – No objections to edit after over two years.

Hi all. I have made one small change:

• Now "The latter are are among the oldest ceramics known."
• Was "The clay items are among the oldest ceramics known."
• The reason is that whilst it may been shpaed from clay the firing process changes the minerals. After firing contains no clay. ThanxTheriac

That's a dubious distinction, but no one seems to have cared. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Clothing

Archaeologist Olga Soffer has studied the figurines and seems to have identified clothing upon them. That theory should be added to this article. T@nn 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have the reference, it would be great if you could add this information. BrainyBabe 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Khoisan "relationship"

Resolved

 – Article text modified over a year ago to link to the issue w/o inserting fanciful theories.

I've moved the following unsourced "relationship" with the Khoisan of southern Africa (how could this be possible?) here (Wetman 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)):

A relationship has been suggested between the female shape of the venus figurines and the steatopygia of the world's most genetically archetypical humans, the Khoisan.

A link in the text to Steatopygia, if needed, could be inserted without offering any such fanciful and unspecified "relationship". --Wetman 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, these Khoisan have been all the way into North Africa - more commonaly referred to as Berbers. Not the whites ones - they are white and mixed, but the Chinses/Mandela styled ones which is a feature in black and white Berbers.--76.28.91.23 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Extension

I have extended the text a bit, based on the French version, which was more detailed than the one here. I have incorporated what was unique to the English version into the new text. I also slightly changed the order and headings and added a gallery. The Khoisan link previously objected to by Whetman is present in this version, remove it of it is considered inappropriate. It is, in my opinion, important as a reflection of the history of research, specifically of the inability on the part of early 20th century European scholars to look at the divergence between the figurines' appearance and their own (Classical-Western) ideals in any terms other than racial. athinaios (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably needs to be merged into the interpretations section and trimmed, as it is undue weight to give so much prose to it. The idea is presently considered patently absurd by most researchers. That it once was a real issue of debate is important, but it need not be dwelt upon at length. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what is supposedly so absurd about the idea. We don't know a real lot about what the inhabitants of Europe looked like in the Upper Paleolithic, more than 10,000 years ago. While I'm not suggesting they were literally closely related to the contemporary inhabitants of southern Africa (who were likely the ancestors of the modern Bushmen), because the long distance involved does make the idea absurd (after all, Europe was first populated by anatomically modern humans through Anatolia and the Arabian peninsula, a long shot from southern Africa), it is not at all impossible or even implausible that they looked considerably more African than typical modern Europeans.

In the section "Evidence from Art", "The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone" points out that cave art from the Magdalenien indeed depicts humans with a considerably darker skin tone than modern Europeans, even comparing the skin tone to that of modern Ethiopians or Khoisan. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing theory

Over a decade ago I encountered (in a reputable source) the theory that the figurines a) are not all the same thing, and b) that many of them, particularly the ones with no arms or arms that go behind the back, and with what appears to be a mask or head covering of some kind pulled down over the eyes, are actually a form of currency, and represent the trading of women captured from rival populations. This is obviously a pretty controversial idea, and pretty much the diametric opposite of the idea that these are goddess figurines. Probably should be mentioned if anyone can find anything on it. I have long since lost the source that I had (ca. 1991 or so). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

that they are not "all the same thing" would stand to reason, seeing that they span a period of 20 millennia(!). The slave-trade-currency idea does seem rather eccentric though. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Currency?! Even excluding the obvious fact that currency was not invented yet, why would people exchanging women need currency? If they were exchanging women for "stuff" (food, gear, etc.), then the woman exchanged herself would be the currency. And if they were trading women for other women, it'd be more like "I'll trade you these 5 scrawny teenagers for those 2 grade-A beauties" or something like that. Aadieu (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

i agree with aadieu that there are a few things against that theory. however i don't think it's all that more absurd than some of the other theories in this wiki-entry. if i follow your line of thought i would think more along the lines of 'trying to lure in women or bewitch women or some such, with a figurine'. whatever the case, it does indeed provide an (in my eyes very welcome) contrast to the 'women as goddesses' theory.

@dab i think he meant that those figures might have had different meanings in different periods and different tribes: maybe they were highly realistic in one place, but purely ritualistic in another.Selena1981 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion?

Would the Idol of Pomos fit into this, admitedly, arbitrary group? WBardwin (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Connection to incised and painted Venus figures?

Connection to Venus figures in parietal art should at least be noted; there's even one included in the images section, i.e., the Venus of Laussel.helio 21:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliogabulus (talk • contribs)

Interpretation

"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." On the contrary, during the Pleistocene age, when these figures were produced, the Ice Age megafauna—mastadons, aurochs, wooly mammoths, not to mention plentiful horses and huge herds of reindeer—furnished plentiful game. The disappearance of these megafauna—and the retreat of the reindeer north—is thought to account in part for forced reliance on plant nutrition to a greater extent. Besides, fertility and physical health are not the same thing."Fertility" is often glibly invoked in connection with the Venus figurines without careful consideration of the particulars. Surviving skeletons from paleolithic and neolithic sites generally show that the former were healthier and more robust—which certainly suggests that they were better nourished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliogabulus (talk • contribs) 01:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Venus of Hradok?

The notable specimens table lists the Venus of Hradok as being a notable such specimen - but it also lists it as being 4KYA and made from mammoth ivory, which seems not completely implausible, but somewhat unreasonable. I can't actually find any substantive information on this specimen, so I've left it for now until I can dig a bit deeper, but does anyone else have a ready source for this specimen? Kate (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Technology rather than religion

It is possible that the figuring were actually tools used to knit nets. That they widespread could be attributed to a the spread of technology that would have been very useful for the neolithic hunter gatherers. Evidence of nets used for hunting small game has been documented. The shape, and the grooves appear to be a tool. the lack of feet would have been important if it was used as some a spindle to weave nets. The variations in the figurines could be different techniques developed by net weavers and could also represent different net sizes.

If I found myself in thier world I would rather have a good net than a good spear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.174.247 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

seems a lot of work for a tool that might easily break and that would loose all intricate details when held in sweaty hands all day long.Selena1981 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)