AND/OR ARTISTS(EUROPE)
| Most people know about the so-called Venus figurines discovered in Europe (dating back as far as 30,000 years BP), but there are various interpretations of what they are, what they were used for and most of all, who made them. Popular analysis of the figurines, that they were fertility symbols created by men to encourage fecundity in “their” women, is not generally representative of all the figurines in terms color, size or shape. Several sources describe the figurines as erotic objects filled with the abundance of life (i.e.: pregnant) suggesting that the examples of steatopygian statuettes is the norm, rather than the exception. Many feminist have adopted the figurines as goddesses and have written countless books suggesting there were matriarchal goddess-worshipping societies in prehistory and that these goddesses were replaced by patriarchal gods. However, using overtly feminist ideologies to understand them are just as problematic as the androcentric views of the archaeologists who first unearthed the carvings during the Victorian era (Russell 1998:159). While it is easy to challenge the androcentric "sex object" interpretation of the data, it is also idealistic to suggest that these figurines were associated with fertility cults, goddess worship or the dominance of women in Neolithic matriarchal societies. But taking feminist or revisionist approaches to understanding the figurines allows for interpretations that do not suggest men made the figurines as erotic art. Re-evaluation of Magdalenian period (16,000 - 9,500 BCE ) art and tools suggests that most interpretations have been determined by the sociological factors and historical roles of the archaeologists, rather than the data. The lack of grave goods for this period makes it difficult to assign gender roles to the material evidence and most of these sites were excavated in the mid to late 1800s, definitely skewing interpretative analysis, but because there is so much material evidence available from this time period, it would be remiss NOT to assign some gender analysis to it (Conkey 1991:70). However, many interpretations of the "Venus" figurines come from a sterotypical and Eurocentric bias, which leaves plenty of room for applying any number of analyses to them. Looking at the figurines as if they are all exactly the same attaches an oft repeated mythology to them rather than illustrating any real attempts to understand them. Most of the descriptions of the figures as fertile, pregnant or erotic come from texts written by men, who almost across the board assume the “figurines were made by men…for men (and) that nakedness is necessarily associated with eroticism” (Nelson 1997:260). In general, such selective interpretations found in textbooks and represent culturally constructed gender roles that have been placed on Upper Paleolithic figurines. In other words, by continuing to allow these descriptions in textbooks, it perpetuates a myth through many generations, when the truth is that no one knows what the figurines were for and there are as many interpretations as there are figures found in the archaeological record. Another interpretation of these figurines has been suggested by Olga Soffer from looking at the material evidence at various pottery sites and examining the many broken figures. Soffer argues that the importance of women in the Paleolithic is supported by the abundance of female figurines found in the archaeological record and suggests that, rather than place erotic value on them, they can perhaps be viewed as celebrations of women’s roles. Evidence suggests that some of the figurines were destroyed in ways that indicate they were not accidentally smashed by inept artists, but were damaged deliberately, perhaps as part of ritual ceremonies (Pringle 1998:68). However, among the many interpretations of the Venus figurines, one hypothesis seems to stand out. LeRoy McDermott suggests that the Paleolithic female figures are self-portraits created by women in various stages of their lives, especially pregnancy. Evidence for this theory comes from looking at the anatomical features of hundreds of stone, bone and antler figurines made in Europe during Upper Paleolithic, and comparing them with photographs of how modern women see themselves (1996:270). This idea is compelling because it does not necessarily suggest a reason for the creation of the figurines, just how they were made and by whom. This analysis removes the modern Western biases from the interpretations of the figurines and offers a plausible explanation for their creation. There is no way to truly know or understand why the figurines were created or who made them. Hundreds have already been unearthed at excavations all over Europe and they span well over 10,000 years. To understand them is to look deep into the worlds of our ancestors with culturally relavistic eyes, accepting the fact that even if their purposes are unknown, they remain compelling and beautiful artifacts from the distant past. |
    |
