My Theories Behind the Venus Figurines

     The reason why Venus figurines were constructed is completely unknown to us as modern archaeologists. Yet, everyone seems to have their own origin story behind why the Venuses were made. Every archaeologist’s interpretation is equally valid as long as they substantiate their arguments with some form of evidence. Instead of making a generalized abstraction about the Venus figurines, I will try to describe them individually. I will make connections where possible but will come up with my own theories behind each of the Venuses I described prior.
     The Hohles Fels Venus is interpreted as being hung as a pendant from a string or rope (Conard: 2009). It is completely possible that this Venus was a form of jewelry; it would likely be given to someone important in the life of the maker. If the Venus was made by a man, he would have likely given it to a wife (if he had one) or daughter.  Jewelry seems to be a commonality of all modern day cultures, and it is highly plausible that the same was true in the past.

http://www.sndgems.com/platinumdiamondhearts.htm

     The Venus of Willendorf as well as the Venus of Brassempouy are interpreted as having worn head gear (Soffer et al.: 2000, Stockstad and Cothren: 2011).  Maybe some form of headgear was required to keep warm during the Upper Paleolithic period. The engraved heads of the Venuses may just be showing the fact that women wore beanies to help fight the cold. Even though the Willendorf Venus appears to be naked besides for her headdress, the creator seems to have wanted to express her as having worn a crown or something similar.

http://howtobecomeastylist.com/2011/02/wear-beanie/

     The Venus of Dolni Vestonice and Venus of Willendorf are similar in that they both have exaggerated female characteristics (Stockstad and Cothren: 2011). This may be similar to our modern day dolls which also exaggerate the female body. Barbie dolls for example have highly distorted proportions with an extremely thin waste, long legs and a large bust. In turn, The Barbie dolls may be interpreted as representing the ideal image of a woman. This image of the ideal has been disdained by some who say that the dolls are influencing young girls into wanting to look like the dolls (Norton et al: 2006). Venus figurines are the exact opposite as far as proportions from Barbie dolls. But it is possible that the people who made the figurines felt that they were creating the ideal woman in stone.  Young women may have been influenced to look like the figurines just like modern day women are influenced to look like Barbie dolls. This influence may have been positive or negative but it is important to say that the figures may have been controversial just like how Barbie dolls are today.

http://www.last.fm/music/Barbie

     The Venus of Galgenburg is interpreted to be dancing (Bahn: 1989). I can see why Bahn feels this way even though the interpretation that the figurine is a woman is established on a very rough looking piece of art. This Venus does not seem to have much detail in it when compared to other Venuses but I feel that categorizing it as a Venus that is dancing is still plausible.  By being so different, but still similar, you have to look at this Venus through a slightly different lens. Bahn did look through his own lens thus creating a highly elaborate story behind this figurine.

http://www.wwd.com/eye/people/famed-ballerina-dances-for-lagerfeld-2146848

     Venus figurines are highly variable in size, shape and construction and because of this it is hard to generalize any overarching conclusion about them.  Many have tried though, with some coming up with highly sexualized interpretations of the figurines. This type of interpretation has now been refuted, especially by newer generations of Anthropologists. I only site a few Venus figurines in my blog, but even while only looking at a few, you can tell that they are all unique in their own ways. Along the same vein, our interpretations about their symbolism are also variable and fluctuating. I hope that the pictures I provided give food for thought and that they make you come up with some of your own conclusions about the Venus Figurines!

Works Cited:

Bahn, Paul G. “Age and the female form.” Nature 342 (1989): 345-346. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.

doi:10.1038/342345a0

Conard, Nicholas J. “A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany.” Nature 459 (2009): 248-252. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.

Norton, Kevin I. et al. “Ken and Barbie at Life Size.” Sex Roles. Vol. 34 (2006): 287-294. Web. 7 Nov. 2012

Soffer, O., Adovasio J. M., and Hyland D.C. “The ‘Venus’ Figurines: Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Status in the Upper Paleolithic.” Current Anthropology Vol. 41 No. 4 (August/October 2000): 511-537. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/317381

Stokstad, Marilyn, and Cothren, Michael W. Art History. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2011. Print.

Venus Figurines Descriptions and Pictures!

Venus figurines are named in  reference to the Roman goddess of beauty, Venus. There are quite a bit of small figurines and other pieces of art that fall under the category of Venus figurines. Venuses are highly differential in shape and size. Venus figurines are carved from ivory, chipped/carved from stone, or molded in clay. Most of the Venuses are named after the place that they where discovered.   In this post I will describe some of the ones from the Upper Paleolithic.

Distribution of Venus Figurine Sites
Soffer page 512

The Venus of Hohle Fels:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.473.html

This is believed to be the oldest Venus dating to about 35,000 years ago (Cressey 2009). This Venus was found in multiple pieces in Hohle Fels cave Germany and is found in Aurignacian period deposit. The head of the Venus, is instead a ring meaning that the figurine was possibly worn as a pendant. The Hohle Fels Venus is carved from mammoth ivory with highly protruding breasts and well defined hands. the waste is slightly thinner than the hips and shoulders. The Hohle Fels Venus seems to have an "extreme emphasis on sexual attributes" with its clearly defined breasts buttocks and vulva. (Conard: 2009)

The Venus of Brassempouy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Venus_of_Brassempouy.jpg

The Venus of Brassempouy dates to as early as 30,000 BCE and was found in France. This Venus has a wide nose long neck and deep-set eyes. The engraved patterning on her head are representative of either a head dress or hair. (Stockstad and Cothren: 2011)

The Venus of Willendorf:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Venus
_von_Willendorf_01.jpg/200px-Venus_von_Willendorf_01.jpg

The Venus of Willendorf dates to 24,000 BCE and is only four inches in height. This Venus is carved from limestone and was covered with red ochre. This figure also has overly exaggerated female attributes with large breasts, buttocks, wide hips and thighs. She also has a big belly with a navel that was a natural indentation in the rock. (Stockstad and Cothren: 2011)

The Venus of Dolni Vestonice:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons
/b/b8/Vestonicka_venuse_edit.jpg

The Venus of Dolni Vestonice dates to 23,000 BCE and was found in Czechoslovakia. This Venus is made from fired clay, this is significant because it is one of the first Venuses to be made from clay. like other Venuses this Venus has a thin waste
and over exaggerated female characteristics. (Stockstad and Cothren: 2011)

The Venus of Galgenburg:

http://chesterfieldpagans.org/2010/06/01/venus-figurines/

This figurine dates to 29,000 BP and is made from green serpentine stone. this type of stone occurs in slabs, thus the figurine is flat. the stone is thick and brittle and took much skill to carve. the artist probably made the arms and legs thicker than normal proportions because if they were carved any thinner they would possibly break. Unlike other Venuses  the Venus of Galgenburg does not have exaggerated female characteristics. She is instead interpreted to be dancing by the position of her legs and feet. (Bahn:1989)



Overall the Venus figurines are beautiful specimens of art. The varying theories about their purposes is also representative of the variation in styles of the figurines. The different materials used and the different methods of construction are very unique. Through my research so far, I have found that archaeologists have been focused on the different theoretical purposes of the figurines rather than the construction method. I myself will also try to draw some conclusions about the figurines borrowing from others theories but while also focusing on my own. Until next time.

Works Cited:

Amalasuntha. “Venus Figurines.” Chesterfield Pagans. Chesterfield Pagans, 1 Jun. 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2012

Bahn, Paul G. “Age and the female form.” Nature 342 (1989): 345-346. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. doi:10.1038/342345a0

Conard, Nicholas J. “A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany.” Nature 459 (2009): 248-252. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.

Hirst, Kristin. “Venus Figurines.”  About.com, n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2012

Soffer, O., Adovasio J. M., and Hyland D.C. “The ‘Venus’ Figurines: Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Status in the Upper Paleolithic.” Current Anthropology Vol. 41 No. 4 (August/October 2000): 511-537. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/317381

Stokstad, Marilyn, and Cothren, Michael W. Art History. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2011. Print.

“Venus Figurines.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. n.d. Web. 4 Nov. 2012

Pre-Historic Art and the Purpose of the Venus Figurines

Lascaux Cave Painting
http://www.lascaux.culture.fr/?lng=en#/fr/00.xml

Some would say that artwork is the cornerstone of modern behavior. This is true even though it is hard to define what exactly modern behavior is. artwork predates writing and us as anthropologists use artwork to make interpretations about the past along with other artifacts.  Of all the topics and forms of art that we have covered in class, I found the Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines most interesting.

According to About.com, "'Venus figurine' is the name given to a nearly universal type of art, appearing first in the Upper Paleolithic period between 31,000 and 9,000 years ago. These small, portable objects include carved plaques and 2- and 3-dimensional representations of humans" (About).  Venus figurines are made from stone bone or ivory and fired clay (Wikipedia). The Venus figurines very in size with the smallest measuring only a few centimeters.



  There are many theories and interpretations about the origins and purpose of the Venus figurines. so far I am finding little consensus between the theories that have been published thus far. That means I get to come up with a theory of my own! But first, I want to highlight some of the  theories that already exist about the purpose of the figurines. 

Different theories on the purpose behind the Venus figurines:

Figurines with exaggerated breasts stomach and buttocks may have been representative of women's health and fertility (Wikipedia). this in turn meant that the women would be physically fit to produce children. In other words the figurines resemble motherhood. This is interpreted due to the fact that the Venus figurines appear to be pregnant.


Patricia Rice argues that the figurines not only represent motherhood, but also represent womanhood. Glorification of fertility seems to be a common thread of other authors. Rice argues that Venus figurines represent women as adults who go through womanhood their whole lifetime, not just when giving birth. 


Paul Mellars argues that the Venus figurine discovered at Hohle Fels is representative of pornography due to its proportions. "[T]he figure is explicitly — and blatantly — that of a woman, with an exaggeration of sexual characteristics (large, projecting breasts, a greatly enlarged and explicit vulva, and bloated belly and thighs) that by twenty-first-century standards could be seen as bordering on the pornographic" (2009: 176).




I find the interpretation that Venus figurines are self representations of women's bodies to be very interesting. In his article, McDermott argues that the Venus figurines resemble the actual bodies of women as interpreted by themselves rather than others. Symbolic distortion is argued not to be the reason for the shapes of the figurines but rather the way women see their bodies when looking down on themselves. The author uses photographic simulations by taking pictures of woman’s bodies from a natural perspective where they look down upon their stomachs, hips, and backs. 

McDermott page 246

In summary, many forms of classification have been overlaid on the Venus figurines. Seemingly every author classifies the Venus figurines in their own ways. And for next time, descriptions of individual figurines and definitely a lot more pictures!! 

I found a very useful blog online. The author seems to know her stuff even though she does not site where she got her information from.
http://chesterfieldpagans.org/2010/06/01/venus-figurines/

Works Cited:

Hirst, Kristin. “Venus Figurines.”  About.com, n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2012  

Mellars, Paul. “Archaeology: Origins of the female image.” Nature. 459 (2009): 176-177.  Web. 30 Oct. 2012 

McDermott, LeRoy. “Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines.” Current Anthropology, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 1996): 227-275. Web. 21 Oct. 2012

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744349

Rice, Patricia C. “Prehistoric Venuses: Symbols of Motherhood or Womanhood?” Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Winter, 1981): 402-414. Web. 30 Oct. 2012 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629836

“Venus Figurines.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. n.d. Web. 4 Nov. 2012