The Venus figurines: what are they and what could they mean?

Artefacts found in the archaeological record can give valuable insight to the lives of people in the past. The objects found are inextricably linked with social, economic, and political factors of life.

The Venus figurines found across Europe from Southern France to Russia during the nomadic hunter-gatherer society of the Upper Palaeolithic (Nelson 2015) [c.32,000-23,000 B.P. (Beck 2016)], are made of long-lasting and imperishable material (stone, antlers, bone) (Scarre 2018). They depict female figures, with the name ‘Venus’ associating them with the Goddess of Love in Western culture (Lander 2005).

There have been a variety of arguments pertaining to the meaning of these figurines. Some have argued that they serve some ritualistic and symbolic function (Beck 2016), others argue that they are examples of ‘cause-and-effect magic’ (Scarre 2018) used for fertility and childbirth, and a select few argue that they are examples of prehistoric pornography (Beck 2016).

Commonly associated with childbirth due to exaggerated features, there is an emerging debate that they may have been used as teaching aids within their hunter-gatherer communities (McCoid and McDermott 1996).

Some have argued that these debates could reveal more about the archaeologists than the figurines (Scarre 2018). Arguments such as the one relating the Figurines to pornography are widely criticised for it’s disturbingly masculinist and presentist imprint on prehistory (Dobres 1992, Nelson 2015) – the arguably ‘grotesque’ and scary nature of the figurines (Nelson 2015) makes such pornographic arguments, perhaps, unsustainable.

The figurines are, for the majority, representations of the female body and as such certain symbolic roles can be ascertained through drawing on the position of women in the Upper Palaeolithic social sphere.

Commonly seen as ‘Mother Goddess’ statuettes, being associated with fertility and the aging of the female form due to the exaggerated breasts and buttocks (Beck 2016). However, there is evidence to undermine this purely reproductive view – Rice (1981) exemplifies that while the figurines may be categorised into their reproductive stages, not all figurines are shown to be child bearers (Rice 2018). Of 133 figurines the percentage of pregnant women (17%) being depicted is significantly lower than nonpregnant reproductive figurines (38%) (Rice 1981) – thus showing that the figurines could represent women throughout their lives, and cannot, then, be reduced to signs of fertility. Through ethnographic comparison to present-day hunter-gatherer communities, the age groups found in the figurines could be representative of the proportions of age groups found in these societies. The figurines may have been symbolic of life stages – being used in ritual ceremonies surrounding menarche in females and perhaps being representative of the power of elders for post-reproductive females (Nelson 2015).

There is also the view from McDermott that the figurines are sculpted from the subjective view of a woman looking down at her own body (1996), showing how women perceive themselves throughout their lives. McDermott also presents the argument that if men were involved in sculpting these figurines, why are so few male figures found for this period? Avdeeco and Kostenski being the only sites that indubitably show male figurines (McDermott 1996).

As such, the figurines could instead be argued to be self-expression – the first of its kind seen in prehistory.

The figurines also represent aspects of the cultures in which they are found, with textile engravings and different trends in exaggeration being shown. In Western Europe hips and thighs are exaggerated, in Eastern Europe breasts and bellies, and in Central Europe there is an intermediate between the two – thus demonstrating regionalism (Adovasio, Hyland and Soffer 2000).

What were the functions of these figurines? Did they represent women’s place in prehistoric society? Were they tokens of respect to women for their labour? Were they figures of ownership? (Adovasio, Hyland and Soffer 2000)

Without knowing their sculptors only broad guesses can be made about these Figurines, and what they can tell us about life in the Upper Palaeolithic. They should not be reduced to images of biology, as this would do a disservice to the portrayal of prehistoric people, they are powerful modes of art with compelling arguments given for self-representational art coupled with ritual function.

---

References

Adovasio, J.M., Hyland, D.C., and Soffer, O. (2000) ‘The “Venus” Figurines: Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Status in the Upper Paleolithic’, Current Anthropology, 41(4) pp.511-538

Beck, M. (2016) ‘Female Figurines in the European Upper Paleolithic: Politics and Bias in Archaeological Interpretation’, in Rautman, A.E. (ed.) Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp.202-214

Dobres, M. (1992) ‘Re-Presentations of Palaeolithic Visual Imagery: Simulacra and their Alternatives’, Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, 73, pp.1-25

Lander, L.M. (2005) From artifact to icon: an analysis of the Venus Figurines in archaeological literature and contemporary culture. Durham theses: Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3027/

McDermott, L. (1996) ‘Self-Representation in Upper Palaeolithic Female Figurines’ Current Anthropology, 37(2), pp.227-275

McCoid, C.H., McDermott, L.D. (1996) ‘Toward Decolonizing Gender: Female Vision in the Upper Paleolithic’, American Anthropologist, 98(2), pp.319-326.

Nelson, S.M. (2016) Shamans, Queens, and Figurines: The Development of Gender Archaeology. California: Routledge.

Rice, P.C. (1981) ‘Prehistoric Venuses: Symbols of Motherhood or Womanhood?’ Journal of Anthropological Research, 37(4), pp.402-413.

Scarre, C. (eds.) (2018) The Human Past: World Prehistory and the development of Human Societies. London: Thames & Hudson.