Don’t worry, though, I gave up posting “on your account” some time ago.
I noticed that!
Sorry, I’m coming in late, and this was a quite a twisted route to follow, so I apologize ahead of time if I go over something that has already been discussed.
Which particular statuette are you referring to here? I think that if these people ca. 25 kya were already into symbolism, as expressed in the beginnings of abstract art, that the figurines could be extended to be fertility icons, or even symbols of prosperity. I will grant that the usage was probably used around and during pregnancy and birth, but could also have been extended to a general ritual of a return to plenty; a change in the seasons; the birth of spring.
That may be true, however these figurines also display an over abundance of fat, more than what a normal woman would gain with a normal pregnancy, let alone a hunter/gatherer woman living 25 kya.
I agree. Most icons of more recent times were only one use, one symbol, one meaning. I understand that some of the figurines have been purposefully buried, some with ocher sprinkled over them, just as the buried bones found at the same sites are. Why would these particular figurines be buried and what would be the significance of that in relation to your belief that they are related to pregnancy and birth? Was it buried with the afterbirth?
While I don’t see anything wrong with this argument, I think that there could have been more to the figurines than just a charm or an icon for the pregnant woman. If it was, then why are all the women so corpulent? Spring time is the easiest hunting time. Alot of the animals are caught up in the mating game, gathering in great numbers, not moving around as much, more obvious, more oblivious. It is a time of plenty, a time when one could get fat easily. It is known that starved women do not easily get pregnant, nor are they able to sustain an infant for any length of time. It would make sense that a woman who was more endowed with fat would more likely produce healthy offspring. So the figurines could actually say more than what you’ve narrowed it down to.
This is a plausible explanation, but I do believe there are others that could be just as worthy. 
Yes, prosperity is definitly involved with these figurines. But, she’s not a worker? Are you suggesting that perhaps there was only one female in the group reproducing? Or are you suggesting that when a woman was pregnant she wasn’t working? Pregnancy wouldn’t affect her physique that fast (see your Demi Moore example), and surely all women worked? In modern primitive societies the women all work, pregnant or not, and many tie their children to their bodies (pregnant or not) so that they can have both hands available to do that work. But then, maybe the figurines represent a cult whereby a woman was fattened up and coddled specifically to produce healthy offspring for the group. Interesting thought.
Angie
**
[/QUOTE]
I figured since I had to wade through all this confusion you would get a few of my opinions whether you wanted them or not.
I have seen your posts as being overly caustic from the very start. You seem to be looking to flame someone, and Jois seems to be trying to avoid that. You are obviously not as well roundedly read as you arrogantly portray yourself to be. Granted, you ask pertinent questions once you get your terminology in place. You seem not to understand that in order to begin a debate, one must have a statement, a premise, which must then be challenged and defended. It is not ego that makes the statements, but propriety. Your challenge was fallicious in that your argument was based on erroneous evidence and facts that were out of place and time. Instead of jumping all over your error, I thought Jois tried to tackfully and humorously wake you up to it, which, in the end took several posts. I did not think that Jois was dismissing Maeglin’s post, but instead was going to research it, as should be done in such a case. As I advise you to do. Google searches usually bring up alot…
Perhaps you think being snarky is attractive. But then that would show how ignorant you are to the principals of anthropological theories.
Unsubstantiated premise. I’ll agree that the evidence given is scant. Would you like some more? There is plenty out there. Go look.
I don’t quite agree with that one…
Huh? What’s this accusation? I’ll admit that the posts got quite confusing there, but have I missed something?
I see you continuing to moan about making errors… Get over it already! Everybody makes mistakes, we won’t hold it against you, make your corrections and excuses if you have to and move on…
Well I can tell that Jois has been avoiding a caustic situation. I don’t know which post was avoided, and don’t really care. I will find discussion with you to be rude, just as most of your posts here seem to be.
Is this the mtDNA question? I happen to agree with Jois. I think you’re confused enough as it is. Genetics is not my field and I know of what I talk… But there is evidence out there that supports female-biased dispersal and competition among social groups. Try: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/5077
It’s subtle, but you seem to be a smart&^% kinda person and should be able to figure it out. Huh? I know of more… so go google.
Repeating the OP was a polite way of trying to point out the errors you were making. I wondered the same as Jois. Did you read the post? Do you know where you are posting?
And what charming people to discuss it with. Don’t you think?
Hmmmm. So who you been posting for?
I didn’t see any arguments from you to Jois about mating customs in any way, shape or form. I went back and checked. In fact, I didn’t see you pose an argument that made any sense at all in regards to the Venus figurines. I read the first post and went to the url provided there and knew what Jois was referring to and talking about, and you did muddy the waters by bringing in evidence from Biblical times, and modern times to back what arguments you did bring forth. The rest of the time you seemed to be nitpicking and not accomplishing much towards building a proper argument. You seem much more suited to, well, this kinda post…
Angie
Lucie, that wasn’t a good catch, that was a great catch! I can’t figure out if this was a paper he could not get into a journal or a private research project that just got out of hand until he got it this polished and then had to post it and get comments, but I would have skipped over it without much thought if you hadn’t pointed it out. Not only do is references look world class but he even has **naked ladies ** (Bolding is for the guys, Lemur866, Spoke-, and Mipsman, I’d hate to have them miss out on that.) and there are comments they might find supportive! And the comments he got from both the anthro and art people were professional, thoughtful and food for thought.
I liked the way the materials were discussed, the difficulty carving the necks and small bits like arms, feet and hands without breakage and that some of the found bits were broken during the carving process. It was easy to see how the triangular shaped lines he superimposed on some figurines would be the first cuts made by a modern craftsperson (with a bandsaw) and hunk of wood but I liked the idea of the feet vanishing away due to the materials in use rather than self=imaging and perspective.
It was surprising so little was said of Olga Soffer’s (though he did indicate correspondence with her in the article) work on the textiles and the figurines - anyway, there is just so much “here” in the article and comments. Thanks!
BTW: Please consider a hotmail address to use as a profile address!
Jois
Hi Angie,
Welcome to SDMB, I’m not ignoring you, I have to stop LOL over the above article before I can read with any understanding.
Jois
It doesn’t require an art historian to take issue with Jois’ OP. I object to her unscholarly approach to understanding material culture, not to her musings on particular scraps of ancient sculpture that I probably don’t give a damn about.
Angie, her response to my post was in fact arrogant and dismissive. To believe otherwise is to delude oneself.
Angie wrote:
This is interesting information, of which I was not previously aware. Do you have any cites for this?
A reverent burial of these objects would undercut my porno hypothesis (unless these people really took their porno seriously).
I think you have some valid points, though I obviously do not agree entirely with your interpretation.
My first post included: 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.” Was that too caustic? Maybe. It seemed an appropriate response to how could anyone say they were anything but pregnant females near term and some kind of charm for labor and delivery? at the time, but it was certainly not the most polite way for me to begin.
As to jois atempts to avoid confrontaion, I obviously disagree.
Please suport the idea that I have made any claims to be “well roundedly read”.
The debate you are seeking began when jois claimed to have the only plausible interpretation for these figurine. His defense was: they look pregnant and pregnancy was a dangerous time for women. I have observed that his case is not strong enough to support that conclusion. You have done the same.
Actually, those were side issues. The core of my challenge has always been that jois has provided no argument strong enough to support his claim of a single plausible answer. That remains the case.
While I do not share your interpretation, it is possible. Perhaps you could also explain why he has kept making references to the confusion after it had been cleared up?
Well, if he offers a substantive response later that will support your view. I note that he did address lucie’s post more substantively after both she and I pointed out that he had failed to do so. Of course, the fact that this issue has been publicized does tarnish the resuls of the “experiment” somewhat. I certainly saw nothing in his response to maeglin that indicated he was delaying further response until he could study her position more fully.
some details
So, you agree that the evidence is scant. Do you disagree that claiming only one plausible explanation for the figurines is sweeping?
And why do you feel it is incumbent upon me to find more evidence to support jois’ sweeping conclusion?
Name calling. Muddying waters. Hardly the worst insults I have ever received, but since jois felt fit to comment upon the appropriateness of other posters’ behavior in GD, I thought I would note them.
I felt that his tying the claim of “muddying waters” to the links I posted was not an honest representation. The charge came in his 5[sup]th[/sup] post after I made the linke and his 3[sup]rd[/sup] direct response to me. It also immediately follows my observation that he had avoided respondingly meaningfully to lucie’s post. His first response after the links included the charge of name-calling, so it seems unreasonable to suppose that he withheld “muddying the waters” out of a concern to avoid conflict, n’est ce pas?
Of course, I realize that it idangerous to assume you know what goes on in another person mind, thus I qualified my observation with seemingly.
I have made my corrections. I am long over it. Perhaps you could post an example of “continued moaning” so that I know what you mean.
Again, we obviously have different interpretations of jois’ posts. We have already mentioned the responses to lucie’s and maeglin’s posts. You see no dismissiveness there. I do. C’est la vie. I have to ask, though, why would you place a smiley at the end of a sentence accusing me of rudeness?
really? Becuase I exchanged neolithic for paleolithic? The evidence that genetic analysis grants for population movements is entirely based upon present distributions and extrapolations into the past. Why do you feel that the techniques involved differ when we collapse or expand the time frame? Exactly what element of genetic analysis have I misrepresented so significantly that you conlude I am too confused to warrant a discussion of the evidence?
[qoute]
Genetics is not my field and I know of what I talk… 
But there is evidence out there that supports female-biased dispersal and competition among social groups. Try: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/5077
It’s subtle, but you seem to be a smart&^% kinda person and should be able to figure it out. Huh? I know of more… so go google.
[/quote]
Well, I am smart enough to know the difference between a comparison of female-biased dispersal among different species of hominids in the present and an argument for mating patterns among human in the past.
If you know of more, particularly if you know of any that are directly pertinent to the questions of exogamy and patrilocalism among paleolithic humans in Europe, please post them.
I am not the only person with whom jois used this particular tactic. Perhaps the admonition to read more carefully is one that you should receive as well as give.
Who are you posting for?
I asked for information. For some time, none was forthcoming. When a cite was provided, it was not to a source that I had access. My own search of cites referencing the same author revealed a quote that indicated her support of jois’ position, but none of the reasoning for it. I mentioned this and asked for a summary or quote of the relevant passages. None has been given.
Exactly what argument do you expect me to make in the absence of any information?
As to arguments regarding the Venus figurines–I do not advocate any particular explanation. My point has consistently been that arguing for one story as “the only plausible” one is unsupported by the evidence. the requirements of that position are simple: show that alternative explanations also fit the evidence.
I always try to address points which have been directed at me. I feel it is the most honest way to conduct this type of “faceless” discussion. I find it helpful to quote the passage I am responding to, so that the antecedent is clear. I do understand that some people do not appreciate this style. You can’t please everyone.
Jois, you keep referring to the thin arms of these figurines (in support of your pregnancy theory), but as far as I can see, most of these figurines don’t even have arms, or if they do, there arms are behind their backs. As far as I can tell, what we do see of their arms appears as corpulent as the rest of the bodies. Do you have links to any photos that demonstrate what you are talking about?
I think it was a very wise man named Mr. T who once said “Ain’t got time for no jibber-jabber!”
Can we all shake hands and get back to debating the figurines, y’all?
Spoke- this site from SM shows the arms pretty clearly:
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/willendorfgoddess.html
The “Venus” that is at the top left (the one with the “hat”)
shows the arms as narrow bands about 3/4 of the way up the beasts. In this view you could guess it was the band of a strapless bathing suit but in this position the arms are considered to be on top of the breasts, in other figurines the arms are carved as if resting under the breasts.
This venus in the sbc.edu site is the same as the “a” sketch from your url.
Look at the photos rather than drawings. I know I have the urls for couple that revolve, I try and find them for they show this so clearly.
Jois
Jois-
To me that just looks like a stylized rendition of the arms, not intended to be a proportionally correct representation. Take a look at the tiny feet on figurine C in the link I provided for another example of this.
Hi Angie,
I tried to post earlier but was so excited to find I’d become that rarest of all things: a male labor and delivery nurse, that it has been hard to settle down. Whoooieee! Sorry.
My favorite is the Venus of Willendorf - the one with the braided hair or hat, depending on who is describing it. Klein (The Human Career 2nd edition 1999) says most of the figurines were certainly or probably associated with the “Gravettian” culture complex dated to between roughly 28-21 ky ago. And oddly enough natural looking engraved animals are found later in the Magdaleian 16-11 ky ago. Due to the time spans involved and the changes in climate at that time (remember Scandinavian ice sheet and the Alpine ice sheet were still in place during the Gravettian)that the colder time would produce the interest in venus figurines? The warmer would produce the interest in the animal? Hum? Were they more than personal charms for pregnancy purposes? Would the usage extend to more abstract themes like spring in those colder times? It’s temping to say yes; but they were so small, so portable and somehow personal. Some had holes and could be tied on like a necklace, marks or places where string could have been wound in to secure the figurine to clothing.
Did you check out Lucie’s site? Some of the figurines were anatomically correct enough to use as visual aids.
I can’t recall the caloric intake for a pregnant woman of today, and the weight gain allowed by doctors does fluctuate, but the demand for breast feeding is 2,000 calories per day. 2,000 calories or the breast feeding will take the fat and more right off the mother. Parasite is a word used to describe the baby in some circles. Could this be what a term female should look like to get a baby and feed it when daily food was uncertain? I can check and see if Larsen (Bioarchaeology-Interpreting behavior from the human skeleton 1997) remarks on the bones and teeth from this time as ones which indicate great fluctuations in food supplies, ricketts and the like.
Not all the figurines were so corpulent. (A sad warning of what happened to preggies that didn’t eat all their veggies? Just kidding!) In general they could be odes to prosperity, and the well being of a group measured by the number of children it could sustain.
The worker bit goes back to the figurines once again. What did they want to be noticed? I think that is obvious - not the feet, or the hands or even graceful necks. There is no emphasis on the arms and hands at all, her contribution to the society will not be the work of her hands or arms or it could just be that arms were too darned tricky to carve between the materials and tools at hand and the way the figurines were carried or held. But I like the idea that the group might deliberately fatten up and coddle the near term pregnant female specifically to produce helathy monther, healthy baby.
Thanks, Angie, it was nice thinking with you.
Jois
{removed extra space and sig at poster’s request. --Gaudere}
[Edited by Gaudere on 03-21-2001 at 11:00 AM]
Not that it makes a rat’s ass bit of diiference this far down the thread but I miswrote when I said early/primitive civilizations were matriarchal. I meant matrilineal. Of course that opens another can of worms if matrilineal societies were once matriarchal
Spoke: “To me that just looks like a stylized rendition of the arms, not intended to be a proportionally correct representation. Take a look at the tiny feet on figurine C in the link I provided for another example of this.”
That seems right, too. Everything about the figurines is stylized. Somewhere in that article or in the comments it was noted that the arms might have been turned on edge, but it looked like the fingers were laying flat.
Did you read the comment section? Some of the comment were just excellent.
I looked for more information about the climate and how the nutrition of that time was reflected in the bones/fossils but could only find Late Pal. or Upper Pal. and that’s too general.
Jois