Paleolithic Venus Figurines: Prehistoric Pinup or Feminist Expression
Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Venus figurines establish interesting challenges for archeologists. A variety of conclusions have been reached through the study of these prehistoric female forms. These palm-sized figurines appear to portray nude obese women, while a detailed examination dares the viewer to identify the significance of their form. Since their initial discovery in the late 1800s, these figures have adopted several interpretations related to human sexuality, fertility, self-representation, and gender. As discussion involving their interpretation persists, Paleolithic Venus figurines may represent the temptation to parallel artwork and modern socio-cultural values and ideals. This practice discounts those who created the figurines and appropriates the past, overwhelming the intentions of Ancient peoples. Acknowledging current interpretations of Paleolithic Venus figurines may encourage an individual to confront personal beliefs that limit the expression of culture and creator.
The term Venus figurine describes a collection of over 200 women figurines discovered across European and Asian archeological sites. Prospectively dating between 40,000 and 8,000 BCE, their relationship to Rome’s beloved goddess Venus was introduced subsequently. While unknown by the majority of society, these figurines have raised multiple questions among archaeologists, artists, and historians such as: what stereotypes do these figurines imply, what kind of technology was used to create them, and what archaeological context did they exist within? Even the terms such as “Venus” and “goddess” have been used out of its initial intellectual and historical context. The most prevalent interpretations of these figurines did not surface until recently as they were first discovered in the late 19th century. At this time, their racial origin was the most prominent topic of discussion. Following World War II, perceptions of Paleolithic female figures become more diverse, one focus being the status of women at the time of their creation. Women during the Paleolithic time period were primarily viewed as symbols of fertility and religious authority. Most recently, researchers have delved into more modern analyses including gender roles in labor and the sexualization or objectification of women.
Venus figures have been used to define and interpret gender roles. These conclusions have been accompanied by ingrained bias regarding differing societies and social dynamics. These biases have been challenged by modern feminist movements, including the Goddess movement, “a political and spiritual reclaiming of a woman’s femininity in terms that are free from the perspectives, definitions, and values attached to it by men.” While this movement is primarily associated with the feminist agenda of the 1960s and 1970s, it celebrates Venus figurines as representations of the Upper Paleolithic European Mother goddess. This goddess was a symbol of female sexuality and challenged gendering practices. Gendering, while appearing to hold a timeless existence, is often considered a social construct, used to separate individuals into similar groups.
As gender is not an empirical matter, rather a socially constructed one, all analysis of Paleolithic work revolving around gender can only be hypothetical. Anthropomorphism, the attribution of human traits or emotions to non-human matters such as gods, animals, or inanimate objects, has been used to interpret some Upper Paleolithic pieces. As gender is considered a social construct based in biological sex, some historians believe that Venus figurines also were cultural constructs and that only females were subjected to this. This form of labeling women and their bodies caused the further division of genders and promotes stereotyped gender roles. Clothing and textiles were later associated with women and therefore an additional section of said gender roles for women.
Furthermore, humanity has explored the potential fertility and self-representation connotations within Upper Paleolithic Venus figurines. During this period, youth and beauty indicated fertility to young men, legitimizing the concept that Venus figurines were sculpted to display admirable features of women, which additionally implied the status and income of the potential subject. Venus figures exhibit varying body types and suggest diverse self-representations, as each human body is unique.
Presented in Figures 4 and 5 is a pregnant woman who cannot easily see the space below her navel. Subsequently, the anatomy below seems to disappear from her perspective, while a woman who is not pregnant can generally see her feet as she looks to them. These sculpted figurines, displaying human pregnancy, were supposedly used to improve reproductive success as well as keep the future mother and child health. Natural selection, the process of humans adapting to their environments over time to better survive and reproduce, ties in closely with the fertility and self-representation aspects of Paleolithic Venus figurines.
In addition, the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is a frequent focus when interpreting Venus figurines. The WHR can reveal the quantity and placement of body fat on a woman, which often changes with life events such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause and is thus used as a gauge of fertility and overall health. As Venus figurines are commonly categorized by WHR, historians have, “found that WHRs varied significantly rather than clustering around “ideal” values, with higher average WHRs across geographical samples.” This diversity is clearly represented within Figures A and B, displaying variations in WHR and potentially age.
While humans often consider research topics completely unrelated to themselves, it is common that pieces of the creator still often prevail in the final product. Humans tend to better understand that which they can relate to. “Autogenous self-representation,” self-representation that attempts to do justice to what an onlooker might see rather than just regular unintentional self-representation, was typical of some Venus figurines.
Some interpret Venus figurines as highly sexualized images of women, which can create assumptions of women as immoral and even unequal to men. Generally, this perspective of women stems from individuals who have seen such artwork without any education of the creator’s intentions. The naked human anatomy of Venus figurines strongly dominates the minimal if any presence of clothing. As artwork of female bodies progressed, particularly in the Pavlovian and Kostenki styles, clothing became less and less central. Should clothes have remained the focus rather than the sexual characteristics, there likely would have been more clothed figures rather than completely nude ones. Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois, Soffer comments on this ideal, “The surface of the body, as the common frontier of society, the social self, and the psycho-biological individual, becomes the symbolic stage upon which the drama of socialization is enacted, and bodily adornment … becomes the language through which it is expressed.” As displayed in Figure 8, clothing seems to serve as mere decoration, and historians challenge the decisions behind the exposed form.
During the Paleolithic time period, men were the predominant decision-makers, additionally deciding what art was considered influential. Therefore, nudity was more prevalent, and without the artist’s insight to understand why a more nude figure was created, onlookers commonly oversexualized these pieces.
Considering the relevance of human sexuality, self-representation, and gender in current society, reexamining previous interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Venus figurines may offer opportunities for productive conversation. Recognizing personal beliefs that limit the expression of culture and artist allow the viewer to identify the significance of their form. In addition to personal beliefs, social ideals have the potential to negatively influence the interpretation of the artwork. Due to the variety of interpretations of each figurine, discussion regarding the true meaning of their creation would be beneficial. Overall, the Upper Paleolithic Venus figurines represent the influence of art and the significance of artistic interpretation, as it can be used to invite communication regarding current social issues, such as sexuality, gender, and clothing.
Bibliography
- April Nowell, et al., Science, the Media, and Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Figurines, (American Anthropologist, 2014).
- Catherine Hodge McCoid, et. Al., Toward Decolonizing Gender: Female Vision in the Upper Paleolithic, (Central Missouri State University, American Anthropological Association, 1996).
- Kaylea R. Vandewettering, Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and Interpretations of Prehistoric Gender Representations, (Western Oregon University, PURE Insights, 2015).
- LeRoy McDermott, Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines, (University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press Journals, 1996).
- O. Soffer, et al., The “Venus” Figurines: “Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and the Status in the Upper Paleolithic, (University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press Journals, 2000).
- Price, Kenneth. “Chapter 1 Prehistoric Art.” Lecture, Greeley, CO, 2019.
- Randall White, The Woman of Brassempouy: A Century of Research and Interpretation, (Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2006).
Image Bibliography
- Vladimir T., Figurine from Malta, Science, the Media, and Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic
- Figurines (American Anthropologist, 2014), 567.
- Venus Figurine made of marl, The “Venus” Figurines: “Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and the Status in the Upper Paleolithic (University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press Journals, 2000), 520.
- Venus of Willendorf, ca. 28,000-25,000 BCE., Toward Decolonizing Gender: Female Vision in the Upper Paleolithic (Central Missouri State University, American Anthropological Association, 1996), 321-323.
