These portly statues of very robust women were nicknamed Venus, assumed to be naked and even thought 20,000 or so years old, we still are unsure of their function.
Dressed or naked, how could anyone say they were anything but pregnant females near term and some kind of charm for labor and delivery?
Jois
I have one of those Venus figure reproducions (obviously) and I don’t think she just represents a really pregnant female. I’ve been a really pregnant female. Now she has that kind of ‘I’ve had a baby’ tummy and heavy breasts and the wide childbearing hips which are all indicitive of a fertile female which is why she’s seen by many as a fertility figure. Not just for human fertility but earth fertility.
Hmmmm, let me count the ways:
Frankly, I find most attempts to deduce the “function” of the Venus figurines within neolithic cultures to be tenuously supported, but at least some of the theorists attempt to inform their positions with research from comparative anthropology, comparative mythology, etc. It ain’t much, but it’s better than saying, “Oy, she’s pregnant. Must be a labor charm.”
Arden Ranger wrote:
Um … I thought the concept of “earth fertility” originated with agriculture.
If these figurines really are Paleolithic, that means they would have pre-dated the invention of agriculture.
I’ve always liked the explanation I read somewhere that the Venuses are “prosperity” figures. In pre-agricultural times, “fat” was good. “Fat” meant “we’ve got plenty to eat”. It meant, “I’ve got lots of extra calories to see me through the lean times, I’ll probably survive the next famine when the game disappears or there’s a drought or something”. So the Willendorf Venus would be a good luck charm for “Fat City” in every sense of the word.
I haven’t seen any other theory that comes close to explaining this statuette. It might be for a safe pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Note that she’s no Demi Moore who was quite pregnant, but this female looks like a term pregnancy.
No double chins, no plump upper arms? The figurines are “fat” only in the way of a term pregnancy.
Not large enough to be used in a group ceremony or gathering. Personal size, easy to carry and there is no evident second “use” - doesn’t even have holes to be a button.
Pregnancy, labor and delivery carried a one chance in five death rate. Be hard not to want something to help in labor and delivery. Oddly enough, at least to me, it was most usual for the female to marry outside her group and not be with the female relatives of her own birth family. Again, seems reasonable that charm would be desirable.
There simply isn’t another plausible explanation.
A DDG is right about prosperity. In a very poor group the female would look like she’d swallowed a basketball with the baby’s demands taking from the body of the mother what the mother’s food intake can’t supply. However a look at the arms in the figurines…she’s not a worker.
Jois
Or, maybe in some of those cases, the figurines didn’t have any ritual purpose at all…people just thought they looked pretty.
It might be a totem for encouraging fertility.
It might be a representation of an ancestor figure.
It might be a goddess associated with abundance in more than simply human reproduction.
It might be associated with warmth, abundance and plenty during winters/lean times.
It might be representative of a “spiritual mother” associated with love, providing, and protecction in all things.
Human beings can be fat in more ways than one. There are tribes in Africa that run toward steatophygian females as a standard of beauty.
Large enough? You mean like a menorah, or a cross, or a dagger? Neither religious nor cultural icons have a necessary size for communal “use”.
Plausible? By that I assume (from your posts so far) that you mean “in keeping with Jois’ preconceptions/limited imagination”.
Hey, I’m not saying it isn’t a fine story that fits the evidence. But it isn’t the only story. And the evidence is scant enough to fit a large number of suppositions.
The question, “how could anyone say they were anything but . . .” can be answered: by exercising scholarship, imagination and free thought.
The above, of course, with the caveat that said folks should be saying, “it might be [something else]”.
Quote Spiritus Mundi:
It might be a totem for encouraging fertility.
It might be a representation of an ancestor figure.
It might be a goddess associated with abundance in more than simply human reproduction.
It might be associated with warmth, abundance and plenty during winters/lean times.
It might be representative of a “spiritual mother” associated with love, providing, and protecction in all things.
Jois: I don’t think you’d get much support for any of the above, but you could try.
quote Spiritus Mundi:
Human beings can be fat in more ways than one. There are tribes in Africa that run toward steatophygian females as a standard of beauty.
Jois: Hum, maybe, but the figurines in question look like term pregnancy not overweight females.
Quote Spiritus Mundi: Large enough? You mean like a menorah, or a cross, or a dagger? Neither religious nor cultural icons have a necessary size for communal “use”.
Jois: Household menorahs are larger than these figurines, crosses are either individual and small or group worship and quite large or elevated on sticks. I’m not too keen on the daggar bit…
Quote Spritius Mundi:
Jois: The question was: “What makes you think that labor and birth are the only aspects of fertility which might inspire a cult figure?” While there are many symbols that might reflect concerns about fertility and cult figures of all sorts, this particular one is portrays a very dangerous and difficult part of life and one for which a female might well wish to have a charm.
Quote Spiritus Mundi:
Jois: There have been many discussions re: mtDNA and Y Chromosome that indicate this.
Quote Spiritus Mundi:
Plausible? By that I assume (from your posts so far) that you mean “in keeping with Jois’ preconceptions/limited imagination”.
Jois: Big assumtion and kind of petty, too.
Quote Spiritus Mundi:
Hey, I’m not saying it isn’t a fine story that fits the evidence. But it isn’t the only story. And the evidence is scant enough to fit a large number of suppositions.
Jois: But how many other stories are there out there that make much sense? Your suggestions might make more sense if the heads were bunches of wheat or replaced with a bear head or antlers to indicate a food animal, but they aren’t there. You can only examine what you have.
Quote Spiritus Mundi: question, “how could anyone say they were anything but . . .” can be answered: by exercising scholarship, imagination and free thought.
Jois: Imagination and free thought? And the everyone would vote and then? Say it might be something else?
Look back to the beginning: “These portly statues of very robust women were nicknamed Venus, assumed to be naked and even thought 20,000 or so years old, we still are unsure of their function. Dressed or naked, how could anyone say they were anything but pregnant females near term and some kind of charm for labor and delivery?”
Note the “…we are still unsure of their function” And do you really think they could possibly be anything other than a pregnant female near term?
Could they be something other than charms for labor and delivery? Skip the free thought and lively imaginings and try for something the fit the time and place.
Jois
Jois, you are a marvel.
Perhaps by not being self-contradictory. You, it seems, are absolutely certain of their function. You base this, apparently, upon the joint suports of personal conviction that they look like pregnant females and limited imagination. After all, it is absurd to think that the specific form of a religious icon or cult figure might not exactly match the ritual significance of the object.
A crucifix is obviously used to curse one;s enemies. A sacred candle could only serve to venerate fire. and serpents are only used as charms against poison.
On to specifics
Actually, I could find support for several of the above. If their was a consensus of opinion then your statement, “we are still uncertain . . .” would be factually incorrect and your question “how could anyone say . . .” would be more reasonable.
Maybe? But you will now pretend that any datum which does not march lockstep with your hypothesis can be discounted? Thank goodness you didn’t actually allow information about beauty standards among the Khoi Khoin and the San or the life of Saartjie to compromise your firm conviction.
For that matter, have you even seen many of these figures, or are you making your declarations from one or two examples. Shall we examine a few?
http://www.mbam.qc.ca/lundi/ancien-lundi-18-08-97/a-lundi6203.html
http://www.smm.org/catal/findings/figurine.htm
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/willendorfgoddess.html
It’s a good thing we have you to assure us that, "No double chins, no plump upper arms? The figurines are “fat” only in the way of a term pregnancy."
Amazing!! You can include the question in your response and still fail utterly to address the it. Here are some hints. The question did not ask:
Are other symbols possible for fertility cults.
Does this figure portray a pregnant woman.
Is pregnancy a dangerous time in the life of a woman in a technologically primitive culture.
Might a woman desire a charm for labor and/or delivery.
Really? Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome studies shed light on marriage customs in prehistoric societies, specifically with respect to exogamy and patrilocalism?
How? Has any reputable scientist lent his name to such absurdity? You simply must post some links or specific citations.
Petty? No, though it is certainly not flattering to you. Big? Getting smaller all the time. Accurate? Apparently.
Indeed I can. I can also refrain from confusing “most reasonable to me” with “only plausible”. I wish that you could do the same. Frankly, I wonder if you also believe that figures of Demeter had heads made of wheat sheaves or that the minotaur must represent the god of bulls.
Vote? What are you blabbering about?
Imagination and free thought should always be present when trying to deduce from scant evidence. What does that have to do with voting or with declaring a single explanation to be “orthodox” or “correct”?
Yes, they could.
No, I will not.
Yes, more than one explanation is possible which fits the time(s) and place(s) for the figurines.
Actually, there are other hypotheses relating to the possible signifigance of these figurines. Here’s one quick link that talks about some of them:
http://www.civilization.ca/membrs/archaeo/paleofig/pal06eng.html
On this site, the author lists some current theories (fertility charms among them), but makes the point that given the scarcity of evidence (and that out of context), how can recent societies possibly bridge a 25,000-35,000 year gap sufficiently to presume to know for certain what an artistic object was for?
Given that most of us could not look at a Jackson Pollack canvas and explain what it means, it’s pretty arrogant to look a handful of representative carvings from the Paleolithic era and say, oh it must be this, because that’s what it looks like to me.
Spiritus Mundi you are the marvel. The first two sites are very different from what I was questioning, only Venus of Willendorf in the third site applies. Notice, however, how late or close to us in time the mother goddess is in that third site.
Name calling, characterizations and cornerstone in Great Debates aren’t they!
Jois
Lucie, see if you can pull up this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_725000/725803.stm
It is a little newer and the clothing aspect was discovered after civilization site was last updated.
Jois
I assume that you mean the first site, the one from Iran. Yes, it is by far the most recent. I included it to demonstrate the wide range of figurines which have been associated with the “Venus cult”.
You, apparently, wish to restrict the discussion only to those figurines which accord most closely with your hypothesis. It would be helpful if you would list a complete catalog of those figures which you wish to discuss, since you obviously do not mean to include all of those figurines which anthropologists and archaeologists have grouped under the heading “Venus figurine”.
I do not believe I have called you any names. I have certainly been unambiguous regarding the respect in which I hold your OP.
What is a cornerstone of Great Debates, much to my dismay, is teh tactic of simply ignoring points which one cannot refute. Your last reply to me is a fine example of this, as is your reply to jois. Or do you really think that reported finds of early textile use somehow addresses the issue of uncertainty in declaring the unambiguous intent behind ritual or artistic objects in prehistoric societies?
In the Pleistocene, I can’t see how the number one contribution, function, use, benefit, advantage to the tribe by women was not fertility and childbearing. I am not belittling that by any means because I believe that is why almost all (the only exception I can think of is the early I-E’s) early cultures for which we have records were matriarchal (I am willing to stand corrected here.) Thus any representation of women from that era would have something to do with fertility.
Spir, I think there are occasions where we can extrapolate back to the emotions that motivated our distant ancestors, but they would have to be on very basic stimuli or impulses. On a petroglyph covered wall in a pass in Nevada, there are very obvious female genitalia among the inscriptions. When I saw them, I instantly drew a picture of lonely Indian boys having to wait in the pass for the antelopes or mountain sheep herds to come by and in their deprivation, drawing what was most on their minds. (The mipsman just moved to NYC and can relate to their deprivation.)
Since pregnancy and reproduction were solely (probably to their minds) the talent and endowment of women, the Pleistocene Venuses were very likely to have something to do with pregnancy, (surviving same was probably high on the list.)
Spir, I do like your reference to the Catal Hoyuk Mother Goddess statue which I consider to be a direct descendant, although separated by as much as 20,000 years, of the veneration\good luck charm\idealized mother figure motivations that caused the Aurignacians and their descendants make their Venuses. I bet Catal Hoyukians looked just like the Aurignacians, but, without a steady diet of megafauna, they might have been a little wimpier.
Hm. SM posted while I was composing mine. Now I’m a little confused. Jois, did I miss something about that last link relevant to the OP? It seemed to me a discussion of weaving, not religious/artistic purpose of “Venus” figurines. I have no problems with the idea of a 27,000-year-old representation of a woven hat; I understood that it was pretty accepted among many scholars that our Paleolithic ancestors were using weaving techniques, at least for baskets and such.
At any rate, I still don’t see compelling evidence for concluding that these statuettes are all fertility charms. If you were to present a crucifix to a native of Arizona living 1,200 years ago, I doubt that they would interpret it as a symbol of of sacrifice and redemption. It might seem perfectly obvious to him that this was a curse object, designed to call down death and suffering on the person to whom it was given. Likewise, while I would dearly love to get a look in the mind of a paleolithic human and see the world the way they did for a time, I know that I can barely comprehend the thoughts and motivations of contemporary humans living in, for instance, Japan. If they people who study this stuff for decades can’t agree on an interpretation, I’m not going to make up my mind based on my scanty layman’s knowledge. Heck, the more I find out, the less certain I am!
Besides, even if these are supposed to be nothing more than a representative portrait of a woman, just because she looks pregnant doesn’t mean she is. If you look at all those paintings of noble European ladies in the 14th century, you’d think they were all balding and pregnant simply due to the styles of dress, posture and portraiture.
In support of the idea that these may be conceptual art, intended to convey an idea that may have had nothing to do with a specific religious purpose, lets say you were a paleolithic carver and wanted to convey the concept “female”. It is likely you would exaggerate the breasts, buttocks, and maybe add in a pregnant stomach. Likewise,if you were carving a representation of “male”, you would naturally accentuate the penis and possibly the testicles. The rest would just be unneccesary window-dressing, and considering the tools you are using, you might not bother about details like faces, hand, feet, six-pack, etc. After all, you are not carving a protrait but an abstract idea.
Just a few possibilities to throw in the pot.
Damn. Guess Ravendriver got in there and made a post between mine. That last one should have been from lucie.
Sorry for the confusion.
mipsman
I only have three quibbles with your post:
First, while I agree that it can be enlightening to posit basic human drives to our distant ancestors, I think it is dangerous to ever apply certainty to any conclusions we base upon such a method. It is evocative, even poetic, to identify with neolithic carver, but we should never forget that they were fully modern human beings in thought, language and culture. Yes, they shared our “basic human drives”. They also shared our human complexity.
Second, extrapolations from modern hunter-gatherer cultures would indicate that a majority of the caloric intake for a clan/tribe would be provided by the females. As a long-term evolutionary advantage, this is less important than reproduction. As a short-term source of status/tribal importance, however, it could arguably be more significant.
Third, I am unaware of any strongly matriarchal societies recorded in the historic era. We do have evidence for cultures with strong female-centered cults/religions, but that is hardly the same thing. Of the earliest literate cultures nearly all appear to have been patriarchal from their earliest records. The Minoan script still eludes us, of course, and some have conjectured a matriarchal beginning to that culture which later lost influence to the malke centered Minos/Double-Ax cult. (Actually, I am not even sure anybody is still supporting that view, it has been several years since I ran across it and I had the impression that it was fairly speculative. Still, it is the closest thing to an argument for a historic matriarchal society that I can remember.) Decorative murals seem to indicate at least a more egalitarian society than the later Mycenaean (IE) incursion, but again this is scant evidence from which to draw sweeping conclusions. The earliest mentions of Crete by the Greeks (Plato, Homer, Thucydides) all refer to the historical/legendary kingship of Minos.
Perhaps if the Minoan scrfipt is ever deciphered it might shed light on an earlier matriarchal society, but I personally do not feel that is likely.
Lucie said: “Given that most of us could not look at a Jackson Pollack canvas and explain what it means, it’s pretty arrogant to look a handful of representative carvings from the Paleolithic era and say, oh it must be this, because that’s what it looks like to me.”
How about this from the op: “Dressed or naked, how could anyone say they were anything but pregnant females near term and some kind of charm for labor and delivery?”
Admittedly after working labor and delivery for a few years it would be hard to change my mind about what term and near term females look like. I don’t think that is arrogant.
Give some good alternatives to the figurines as something other than charms.
No, Spiritus Mundi, that third site had a picture of one of the Venus figurines from 20,000 years ago that I was interested in and that we were discussing here, but the article was about much more recent female figures, like Greek and only towards the end mentioned the Venus figurine. Are you implying that there was a female cult that lasted from 20 kya to the Greeks? I don’t think you would get much support for that either.
I’d rather be discussing those figurines per the OP.
Olga Soffer supposidly does think that the fabric or textiles on these figurines may change our minds about pre-history and the role of women in that culture. That site was suggested because it has further information and pictures (IIRC).
“Your last reply to me is a fine example of this, as is your reply to jois.”
You are out to muddy the waters!
Jois
*Originally posted by Ravendriver *
**Hm. SM posted while I was composing mine. Now I’m a little confused. Jois, did I miss something about that last link relevant to the OP? It seemed to me a discussion of weaving, not religious/artistic purpose of “Venus” figurines. I have no problems with the idea of a 27,000-year-old representation of a woven hat; I understood that it was pretty accepted among many scholars that our Paleolithic ancestors were using weaving techniques, at least for baskets and such. **
I thought the finding of clothing on the Venus figurines was fairly new, but that IIRC it has links for more than the basic information and good pictures.
At any rate, I still don’t see compelling evidence for concluding that these statuettes are all fertility charms. If you were to present a crucifix to a native of Arizona living 1,200 years ago, I doubt that they would interpret it as a symbol of of sacrifice and redemption. It might seem perfectly obvious to him that this was a curse object, designed to call down death and suffering on the person to whom it was given. Likewise, while I would dearly love to get a look in the mind of a paleolithic human and see the world the way they did for a time, I know that I can barely comprehend the thoughts and motivations of contemporary humans living in, for instance, Japan.
I don’t think the figurines are as abstract as the cross or even the crucifix or as broad as trying to understand an entire culture, that’s a awful lot of information.
If they people who study this stuff for decades can’t agree on an interpretation, I’m not going to make up my mind based on my scanty layman’s knowledge. Heck, the more I find out, the less certain I am!
IMO that is exactly what leaves paleoanthropology so open to speculation - the specialists don’t agree, not even about the “big” issues and worse, as new information becomes available, old ideas have to change. Or at least, should have to change.
**Besides, even if these are supposed to be nothing more than a representative portrait of a woman, just because she looks pregnant doesn’t mean she is. If you look at all those paintings of noble European ladies in the 14th century, you’d think they were all balding and pregnant simply due to the styles of dress, posture and portraiture. **
Yes, but pregnancy is hard to fake when the figure is naked, or, at least, looks naked.
In support of the idea that these may be conceptual art, intended to convey an idea that may have had nothing to do with a specific religious purpose, lets say you were a paleolithic carver and wanted to convey the concept “female”. It is likely you would exaggerate the breasts, buttocks, and maybe add in a pregnant stomach. Likewise,if you were carving a representation of “male”, you would naturally accentuate the penis and possibly the testicles. The rest would just be unneccesary window-dressing, and considering the tools you are using, you might not bother about details like faces, hand, feet, six-pack, etc. After all, you are not carving a protrait but an abstract idea.
If they are no more than comceptual art, they certainly to convey the concept of “female” very well.
Just a few possibilities to throw in the pot.
Good, thanks.
A quote from that third site of Spritus Mundi:
Although the paradigm of the “Venus” of Willendorf as Mother Goddess persists, in recent years the figurine has also been interpreted as possibly functioning in a more gynaecological context, perhaps serving as a charm or amulet of some kind for women in connection with fertility.
Jois