Contemporary Analyses of the Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines
Some of the earliest representations of humans, dating to around 30,000 years ago, are the figurines of naked female physiques. These have been found across Europe ranging from Southern France’s Pyrenees, the Don river in the USSR, and even some anomalies in Siberia (Nelson 1990). The first figurines described by Piette (1895) and Reinach (1898) are of small sculptures and engraved materials that were found in caves located in southern France. Since the initial descriptions, as many as several hundred more have been found and identified as figurines (McCoid & McDermott 1996). The most identifiable figurines have been believed to be created at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period, circa 27,000-21,000 B.C. (McCoid & McDermott 1996). It is important to note that the Upper Paleolithic figurines are distinctively different in terms of style compared to those of the later Magdalenian period. The focus of the early figurines lies within the Upper Perigordian or Gravettian findings in France. This focus also includes the related Eastern Gravettian figurines from the Pavlovian era in the (former) Soviet Union, specifically Czechoslovakia and Kostenkian (McCoid & McDermott 1996). The figurines themselves, most often depicting the female body, have a range of distribution in terms of location and period. Regardless of the context, meaning the culture and historical background of the figurine’s original location, it must be assumed and noted that figurines were made for purpose and use (Haaland & Haaland 1996). Along with the distribution of location and time period, there is immense diversity in the morphology of the figurines. The diversity of the figurines lies in the shaping, positioning, and detailing of the figure. The only similarity that can be interpreted across the figurines is the display of female bodies. (Nelson 2008). Labeling these female figurines as “venuses” comes from the distinguished resemblance in some of the figurine models to Sartje Baartman, the “Hottentot Venus”. Baartman was a Khoisan woman brought to Europe during the early 19th century and was exhibited for her “extreme” sexual figure in both France and England (Nowell, Chang, 2014). Selective focus on the “extreme” attributes, that are assumed to be the most important attributes to the physique, have undoubtedly contributed to the numerous explanations and interpretations of these figurines. Some depictions of what the figurines represent include fertility symbolization, “mother goddesses”, erotic sex symbols, reproductive learning models, and models of self-expression and representation (Soffer et al. 2000). In consideration of these varied approaches to the figurines, the idea that they are connected with the symbolization of sex and fertility has been most often described. There are limited conclusions concerning the purpose of this symbolic representation and the creation of these figurines. Considering this factor of the figurines’ symbolic meaning, there has been consensus that the figurines serve as sexual beings formed by the male perspective of women’s morphology (McCoid & McDermott 1996). Despite this being the consensus behind the figurines’ meaning and creation, a different approach has been brought to light. There is now a more contemporary analysis that the figurine’s origin of meaning is related to female representation, possible pregnancy depictions, and self-expression (McCoid & McDermott 1996).
If we do not acknowledge the variability in the morphological composition of the figurines, it becomes far easier to make generalizations about their meaning and function of them. (Nelson 2008). Looking from even a preliminary scope of the carved and engraved figurines, either from Gravettian or Magdalenian eras demonstrates how various morphologies are depicted in the female figurines; ranging from slender to more obese females. (Duhard 1993). Specifically, when looking at the weight disparity of the figurines, results conclude that the women depicted in the figurines are among variation and representation of forms we see among living females. Features of the living morphology depicted in the figurines include excess fat in areas of gluteal muscles, hips, and pelvic region, along with thighs and legs. Therefore, the diversity reflected in the construction of figurines is alike and realistic to that of human beings (Duhard 1993). The most found and depicted characteristics of the venus figurines include a usually downward leaning head with no face-like features; narrow arms that either cross the breasts or are hidden beneath, thin upper-torso region; excessively large, protruding breasts; fatty buttocks region sometimes including thighs/legs; distinguished and invariably pregnant stomach; sometimes enlarged navel region that coincides with the abdomen; and diminutive, often bent, legs that then branch off to a rounded point or similarly minuscule feet (McCoid & McDermott 1996). In the majority of these figurines’ overall morphology, they reflect an unnatural structuring of the body, what Andre Leroi-Gourhan (1968) defined as “lozenge composition” (Leroi-Gourhan 1968) (McCoid & McDermott 1996). In terms of the material used for the engraving or carving of the figurines, most figurines of Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettian origin were found to be made out of various stones, bone, and ivory (Vandiver et al. 1989). Carved sculptures have also been found in four Gravettian sites in France: La Mouthe, Laussel, Terme Pialet, and Abri Pataud (McCoid & McDermott 1996).
Historically, there are two considerably dangerous assumptions when it comes to Paleolithic artwork. This is because men are the intended and sole audience of artwork, including its creator. The other is the idea that men are subjects of artwork and women are considered the object of artwork (Nowell & Chang 2014). The gendering of artists in the Upper Paleolithic figurines has remained unknown (Bahn 1986) but there is the assumption that men are the creators based upon the accepted belief that all significantly “great art” has historically been made by men. Also, specifically with the venus figurines, the idea that in their creation the perceived features and sexual ideas behind the figurines would only appeal to the male gaze. (Nowell & Chang 2014). In general terms of creating the figurines, they have been described as meaning to educate men, excite them, or even honor the acts of violence perpetrated against women by men (Dobres 1992)(Nowell & Chang 2014). Guthrie’s analysis in 2005 stated that all venus figurines represented the concept of “paleo erotica” based on the ratio of women’s waists to their hips (WHRs). The WHR is meant to depict the distribution of fat and how much fat one woman has in that region. According to Guthrie’s data, all of the Upper Paleolithic female figurines represent a ratio of WHR around 0.655, considered below the universal preference of 0.7. (Guthrie 2005). His conclusion from this is that men in the Paleolithic era preferred women who were considered to have smaller waists and curvier hips. This cannot be seen as an accurate representation of meaning in the figurines due to Guthrie’s reliance on two-dimensional photographs to measure the ratios of WHR (Nowell & Chang 2014)(Guthrie 2005). Describing the figurines as an erotic conception is one of a male-dominated perspective of the world where the female existence is rooted in the use of males, whether it be for sexual or reproductive purposes. Scholarly literature surrounding the venus figurine’s meaning has been riddled with this kind of perspective (Nelson 2008). In interpreting the figurines this way it paints them in a solely sexual context that then prevents the scientific and objective study of them (Nowell & Chang 2014).
When looking at Paleolithic art, it is a considerable mistake to have the common perspective in figurines as obese women, as this is not the general conclusion. Including those that are the consensus of venus figurines, there are also many slender and smaller figurines. By including all shapes and sizes of feminine figurines also leaves room for the inclusion of all aged figurines, ranging from younger forms to older women. (Duhard 1993). The alternative perspective, with the factor inclusion of age, is that venus figurines represent the age spectrum of adult women, and therefore it is womanhood represented in the figurines and not fertility alone (Rice 1981) Important to note in this perspective is that the chronological age and geographical region of the figurines must be acknowledged in understanding (Duhard 1993). For the research conducted on this new perspective of the figurines, the figurines themselves were split among three categories of age: young (preproductive), middle (reproductive) including pregnant/not pregnant, and old (post reproductive) (Rice 1981). Five body attributes of 188 Eurasian Upper Paleolithic venus figurines were then examined, placing the figurine within one of the categories named above. The body attributes included breasts, abdomens, hips, buttocks regions, and faces that then would decipher what age group a figurine would classify as; including all figurines being assessed for pregnancy or non-pregnancy. Attributes of the body were scaled 1-3 with the expected attributes corresponding to the age range (Rice 1981). To be placed within the young (preproductive) category, a figurines attributes had to be between averages of 0.6 and 1.5; the middle (reproductive) category averages were 1.6 to 2.5, including whether pregnant or non-pregnant; anything over an 2.6 was considered of old (post reproductive) category (Rice 1981). The averaging analysis of body characteristics of the figurines resulted in 23 percent being young (preproductive); 17 percent being middle (reproductive) and pregnant; 38 percent being middle (reproductive) and non-pregnant; and 22 percent being old (post reproductive). It was also found that there was evidence of pregnancy within 68 percent of the Gravettian figurines, more than the 36 percent from the Magdalenian (Rice 1981). This data was then compared to the average female ages across prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies in order to draw conclusions about accuracy and legitimacy of the original perspective. It was concluded that there is in fact a close relationship between the age diversity of the figurines and women in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies, including those who are pregnant and non-pregnant. (Rice 1981). Overall, the conclusion brought from the data is the concept that venus figurines may represent womanhood in totality over the idea of just those who are expecting mothers. It brings along the question of what women’s role was within these hunter-gatherer societies that sparked the creation of the venus figurines. In looking at other ethnographic data about women in these societies, it was brought to consensus that the venus figurines may have been made to demonstrate women within the hunter-gatherer. (Rice 1981). Duhard expands this conclusion in her own work stating how women may have been considered privileged due to the importance of their physiological abilities with child bearing and being sexual partners. Roles such as these, considering the location and period of time, can be represented in any work of Paleolithic art; not just the venus figurines themselves (Duhard 1993).
McDermott provides another testable and possible explanation for the existence of and meaning behind the venus figurines: that they serve as models of self-identification and representation for Paleolithic women (McDermott 1985). The figurines that would be considered under the scope of this perspective are those from the Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettian period dating back 29,000-23,000 BP (Haaland & Haaland 1996). Self-identification and representation as a perspective would be able to provide context to why besides the variation in the shaping, positioning, and sizing of the figurine, their heads all in some way lack facial features while being turned downwards. If a woman were to be looking down at herself, she sees a much smaller image of her neck and abdomen; while the breasts are depicted large. This idea of a perspective aids in the explanation of the exaggerated sizing and elongation of the breasts in different figure morphologies. If we view figurines this way, the breasts depiction is similar to those of a modern woman who is of childbearing age or pregnant (McCoid & McDermott 1996). When comparing the figurines and images of them with photographs simulating the downward perspective of a modern woman toward her body, comparative features are found. Since the discovery of this comparative analysis, it is now possible that we have been looking at the figurines from a wrong perspective (McCoid & McDermott 1996). Looking at the location of the eyes on the female body, it would be seen that for an expecting mother the body enlarges to the abdomen, leaving the lower half of the body narrower and tapered off. The information in this view has resulted in the lozenge formation of the body or otherwise known as anatomically unnatural proportions. The distorted perspective a woman has of her body looking downwardly is also expressed in the view of the back and side of her figure. When a woman rotates and lifts her arm to look down the side of her body, the view includes a long strip of her torso and then tapered perception of the leg (McCoid & McDermott 1996). The feet in this view may be visible depending on the body type, but are often distorted due to the body’s interfering angle. Also included in this perspective is the view of the bent-knee positioning seen in many figurines. The forward facing-ness of the thigh and further back positioning of the calf muscle are the explanation behind this possible viewing. To be included is the cultural difference between methods of female self-inspections. Cultures located in Italy and France prefer to look over the shoulder in examination while other cultures choose to look under the arm and downward in examination (McCoid & McDermott 1996). Possible reasoning for the figurines creation is with the idea of gaining more control over reproduction. The figurines themselves were made during a probable time for population increases to be significant alongside restructurings of culture and economics. The beginning to the middle of the Upper Paleolithic has been characterized as productive in the way it changed over time; possibly being the reproductive changes that then allowed for population growth and changes in technology during the latter half of the Upper Paleolithic (McCoid & McDermott 1996).
More contemporary research and analyses of the venus figurines would only lead to more discovery in their creation. There would be more possibilities in finding out who the original crafters were, the meaning of the figurines, and how they were used within Paleolithic societies. Not only would it be a source of more information about the figurines themselves, we would learn much more about Paleolithic women and their roles in societies. Finding out about the role of women in these societies would be an expansion of knowledge that could impact the way we perceive women’s roles today. If it were to be found that women had not only strong reproductive roles in the Paleolithic period, but also strong social roles, then it could be replicated today. In contemporary society today it is still foreign and uncomfortable to some individuals that women have the capability of being high achieving members of society. Examples of such are women in politics and in highly professional roles such as CEOs and owners of businesses. With a normalized view of women, provided by the further contextualization of venus figurines, our world would only advance. This then calls for deeper research in the composition of the venus figurines, analyzing possible creators based on the complexity and detailing of the figurines in comparison to other Paleolithic artwork with known creators. It also calls for deeper research in the roles of the venus figurines and how they form relationships with the roles of actual Paleolithic women.
