Talk:Venus figurine/Archive 1

"women were commonly believed to give birth"?
Mistake or political statement?

the Venus figurines maybe be the self-image of the women who created them?
I remember reading, in a basic first-year anthropology survey class, that the Venus figurines maybe be the self-image of the women who created them - "the body as seen by a woman looking down on herself". Is this a popular theory? It seemed dumb to me, surely they could see their reflection in water or something, or they could see what other women looked like...seems more like an assumption that prehistoric people weren't very bright. The quote is from "Toward Decolonizing Gender: Female Vision in the Upper Paleolithic" by Catherine Hodge McCoid and LeRoy D. McDermott, in American Anthropologist, June 1996. Adam Bishop 03:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The article just says that "the body as seen by a woman looking down on herself" has almost exactly the same proportions as the figurine viewed from above. Therefore it's likely that the figurine was created by a woman who used her own body as a model.
 * Different cultures value different aesthetics. Cultures like ours place greater emphasis on realism or naturalism, and so use third-person models -- other people, reflections -- even for self-representation. The culture of these Paleolithic humans, if McCoid and McDermott are right, may have placed greater emphasis on symbolism and personal meaning, and so their sculptors may have used a first-person model of looking down on one's own body to make their self-portraits. Besides its cultural context, this aesthetic makes a lot of sense in the context of McCoid and McDermott's argument that the sculptors were not just women but pregnant women. To experience late-term pregnancy in a hostile and unforgiving environment, trying to keep up with the other members of your small nomadic tribe even as your growing belly slows you down and trips you up, preparing to undergo the painful, life-altering event that is natural childbirth (perhaps with the support of a midwife, perhaps alone) in a time when childbirth too often ended in death... well, you wouldn't give two figs about how other people saw you, but you would be doing one hell of a lot of self-reflection. So McCoid and McDermott's theory that these Paleolithic people (read: women) looked to their own bodies in sculpting their figures does NOT assume that were stupid, just that they were more interested in how they saw themselves than in how others saw them. 70.184.72.38 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

dunno, i think it is good to keep an open mind to the idea that other cultures might have had a radically different way of looking at the world than we have today. but on the other hand it seems like anthropology and human-evolution is absolutely swamped by people who try to give their own social ideas legitimacy by going out of their way to find old artifacts that MIGHT (with a lot of fantasy) jive with their theory. personally i think that if your views of 'the prehistory' have about ZERO historical or contemporary anthropological existence (there is not a single 'primitive tribe' that still does things your way) than you should admit you are just wildly speculating and fantasizing and not being very scientific Selena1981 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Adam Bishop: the academics' latest 'big' idea surely does imply that the Palaeolithic cultures which produced the female figures and figurines were subhumanly stupid. But what this in turn implies, I believe, is that the real idiots - both the academics for coming out with the idea and others for taking it seriously, even for a moment - are our modern adult selves.

An article which takes this view, and which also puts forward a new idea concerning the iconology of the Palaeolithic female figures and figurines (new for modern times, that is), has just been published here: http://www.goddess-pages.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=128

I'd be very interested to see people's comments on the article - Adam Bishop's in particular. (Nb. The article comes in two halves, the second half will be published in the journal's next edition.) MagicCamel 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well that was just a random thought I had a few years ago, concerning a class I took when I was young and dumb 8 years ago. Now I am inclined to agree with 70.184.72.38 up above, although I really don't have the training or expertise to have any meaningful opinion about the subject. That article is interesting, but it's just some guy speculating about one particular figure (much like us on this talk page). He's obviously not very good at linguistics, among other things, and has an amusing "ha ha, stupid academics" attitude. Adam Bishop 12:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this McCoid and LeRoy D. McDermott theory really deserves mention. Also, I don't think that it is saying that anyone was stupid. The first person perspect is right as the first person perspective, and there is no reason why one should not want to create statues from that perspective. By the way, these figures even exist in Joumon period Japan. They are intepretted as exentuating the reproductive nature of women (big breasts and hips). The lower legs are often quite thin so this fits well with the first person perspective theory and badly with the obesity theory.--Timtak (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting interpretation that should be cited and added to the article (it wasn't in there last time I looked at it), in the interpretations section. I don't buy that interpretation myself, but there are several sources that can be cited for it, so it should be included as part of the overall debate. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
I'm not understanding why this has been set to redirect to the plural form. Can someone explain the reasoning before I try to change anything back? Beginning 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No one seems to care. The probable reason is that the article is about a broad class of figurines; they are not particularly homogenous. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How about some pictures
I want to see a picture of the rest of the Venuses! The only article that seems to display a picture is that of the Venus of Willendorf--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Obesity was key to human survival
"Like many such artifacts, their true cultural meaning may never be known; however, given that at the time of their construction human society would not have the same tendency towards obesity as it has today (as foodstuffs, particularly those which are fattening, would have been scarce as farming had not yet been invented)"

Meat and fat is very calorific, so is honey, and gathered seeds also are not 'lite' snacks either. Obesity is not a problem but a boon in a society where there is no guaranteed food supply, see my discussion comment on the Venus of Willendorf for a simple calculation that shows that an obese woman with a BMI of about 36 just about has enough reserves to survive 3 month (about one winter) and so, the figurine could equally well be a model to remind women to be well prepared for the cold season. In other words, if people were as skinny back then as some people think, humans would have died out long ago, and there is a reason why so many people are fat nowadays -- we're built for it, our bodies gravitate towards it when there is plentiful supply of food -- which is why you hear much about diets, but see very few dieting sucesses, as the body itself views weightloss as a failure. Cinnamon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.218.135 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2006


 * Cinnamon, you make it sound like Paleolithic humans simply sat in their caves and hibernated through the cold season, living off their fat stores, when in fact they were nomadic peoples who continued to hunt throughout the winter. The evidence shows they followed herds of reindeer, bison, horse, and mammoth, which would have sustained them -- men and women both -- as well as provided them with warm clothing and shelter. Certainly it would be advantageous for them to have winter fat stores, too, but that hardly means they needed to be obese to make it to spring. 70.184.72.38 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Followed HERDS? IN WINTER??? ...No wonder your IP shows up as Tucson, Arizona. FYI: this stuff was found in *europe*. Try camping in snow for a couple of days, without microfibre, without lightweight titanium and polyester tents, etc etc - hell, actually, try it *with* all the gear provided by modern technology (you still won't last very long). The whole reason that people lived in caves is that, for about half the year, the elements really offer no other viable alternative. Aadieu (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this "fat survival" theory would need quite a lot of reputable research cited in order to be included. I've been studying anthropology for a long time, and cannot think of any solid material that would back this idea.  Obesity is quite rare among extant hunter-gatherers and horitculturist societies. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's rare. That's the whole point! In modern terms, these gals depicted on the figurines are essentially "rich" and "high-status", probably the favoured daughters or wives of the tribe's chief or shaman. Having plenty of food available is a luxury, a sign of privilege for women in tribal cultures. Health (more than adequate nutrition = survival) and social status equal maximum reproductive success. Aadieu (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean uncommon, e.g. elite, within a tribe, I mean generally not found at all, except where Westernization has caused it, e.g. with introduction of low-quality fattening foodstuffs high in refined sugars. I don't particularly doubt that they represent some kind of idealization or exaggeration, but it's highly unlikely they are intended to be realistic guides to how much to fatten up to for the winter. My opinion's not what matters, though.  To even add something like this as a possibility, we'd need reliable sources like physical anthropologists getting the idea published in journals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider the beauty ideals of most surviving contemporary tribal societies. An ample woman is, more often than not, idealized. In some societies, having fat wives and daughters is a male status symbol, a visual display of prosperity that indicates the head of household is a good and fair provider with resources to spare to look after everyone... and, even in modern socieites, among educated urban families, there have been similar trends after times of scarcity, for example grandmothers who lived through World War II chronically and intentionally trying to fatten up the grandkids. Or Soviet summer vacation camps in the 60s and 70s documenting children's weight at start and end of program and sending it to parents, with an overt implication that weight gained = sign that management did right by the kids = good.
 * I think you've overlooked the extreme obesity of women (so called "steatopygia") common in many hunter-gatherer societies, like Khoisan, African Pygmies and Andamanese. This is exactly a "fat survival" strategy, for energy storage or sexual selection for high fertility. It's completely reasonable that in Paleolithic Europe, long before the advancement of agriculture, women also developed this strategy for the survival of offspring (or inherited from the human common ancestor), as depicted in the Venus figurines, either as real depiction or symbolic worship. Chakazul (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've overlooked finding out what steatopygia actually it, since it certainly isn't "extreme obesity"; it's buildup of adopose tissue is very, very specific ways that are not mirrored in these "Venus" images. Even our article on steatopygia already goes into this, with sources. That material should be in article as well, in some form. Indeed, it's more important here than in the steatopygia article, since it's technically a -steatopygia hypothesis, and so it might be removed from the steatopygia article at any time as off-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

the thing i find interesting about this whole discussion is how people will go out of their way to find excuses for how cavemen could not possibly have been fat: it was just a fantasy, it was extremely rare, it were pregnant instead of fat women, maybe they had strange genes only giving them a fat butt, etc etc. it seems like a lot of people just cannot rhyme the idea of a whole primitive tribe filled with (most of the time) fat people with this strong cultural image we have been presented with since our earliest childhood: of the 'fit thin caveman' running after wholly mammoths all day long, who represents a kind of lost paradise when our ancestors were 'the way nature intended us' Selena1981 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of a "cultural image", we simply don't have any evidence to support the notion of late stone age humans being obese. Even in cold-weather cultures where a huge proportion of the diet was fat, from marine mammals, we still did not see a pattern of obesity. Regardless, there does not seem to be any reliable sourcing for your "all the cave people were fat" hypothesis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To be fair, most of these figurines depict women of around 200 lbs, if that...maybe just maybe 250 lbs, if and only if they were of extremely tall stature. Quite far from 21st century obesity records. And they wouldn't ever be chasing mammoths, division of labor and all that, plus they're supposed to depict idealized wife-and-mother characters, not terminator sidekicks or norse sjield-wives. A fat prehistoric "homemaker", especially one of childbearing age frequently pregnant or nursing, would be FAR better positioned to survive hunter-gatherer misfortunes like becoming widowed or having the proverbial mammoth break a few bones on the family's main provider.

Also note that both art and pornography, today and historically, over-emphasize traits seen as desirable, giving us unusually frequent depictions of "Greek god"-style chiseled and hairless bodybuilder males with ample heads of hair, extremely tall willowy blondes, etc. In a world mostly filled with hairy-bodied bald men and far shorter brunettes.

Another image:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Venus_da_Vinci.jpg --Snek01 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clay -> ceramics
Hi all. I have made one small change:
 * Now "The latter are are among the oldest ceramics known."
 * Was "The clay items are among the oldest ceramics known."
 * The reason is that whilst it may been shpaed from clay the firing process changes the minerals. After firing contains no clay. ThanxTheriac
 * That's a dubious distinction, but no one seems to have cared. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Clothing
Archaeologist Olga Soffer has studied the figurines and seems to have identified clothing upon them. That theory should be added to this article. T@nn 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have the reference, it would be great if you could add this information. BrainyBabe 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Khoisan "relationship"
I've moved the following unsourced "relationship" with the Khoisan of southern Africa (how could this be possible?) here (Wetman 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)):


 * A relationship has been suggested between the female shape of the venus figurines and the steatopygia of the world's most genetically archetypical humans, the Khoisan.

A link in the text to Steatopygia, if needed, could be inserted without offering any such fanciful and unspecified "relationship". --Wetman 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, these Khoisan have been all the way into North Africa - more commonaly referred to as Berbers. Not the whites ones - they are white and mixed, but the Chinses/Mandela styled ones which is a feature in black and white Berbers.--76.28.91.23 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Extension
I have extended the text a bit, based on the French version, which was more detailed than the one here. I have incorporated what was unique to the English version into the new text. I also slightly changed the order and headings and added a gallery. The Khoisan link previously objected to by Whetman is present in this version, remove it of it is considered inappropriate. It is, in my opinion, important as a reflection of the history of research, specifically of the inability on the part of early 20th century European scholars to look at the divergence between the figurines' appearance and their own (Classical-Western) ideals in any terms other than racial. athinaios (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably needs to be merged into the interpretations section and trimmed, as it is undue weight to give so much prose to it. The idea is presently considered patently absurd by most researchers. That it once was a real issue of debate is important, but it need not be dwelt upon at length. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what is supposedly so absurd about the idea. We don't know a real lot about what the inhabitants of Europe looked like in the Upper Paleolithic, more than 10,000 years ago. While I'm not suggesting they were literally closely related to the contemporary inhabitants of southern Africa (who were likely the ancestors of the modern Bushmen), because the long distance involved does make the idea absurd (after all, Europe was first populated by anatomically modern humans through Anatolia and the Arabian peninsula, a long shot from southern Africa), it is not at all impossible or even implausible that they looked considerably more African than typical modern Europeans.
 * In the section "Evidence from Art", "The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone" points out that cave art from the Magdalenien indeed depicts humans with a considerably darker skin tone than modern Europeans, even comparing the skin tone to that of modern Ethiopians or Khoisan. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Maybe it was something kind of like steatopygia" is one thing; "a direct link to the Khoisan" has no basis in anything, thus the WP:UNDUE concern. I think the coverage of this idea in the article as of this writing is okay. The main flaws in the article are all the missing hypotheses (see several threads above and below) that can actually be reliably sourced.  Even if none stand out as tremendously likely, they should still be mentioned, just as the others are.  This article is supposed to be representative of the sourced material, including conflicting theories.  As a side point, skin tone is probably irrelevant.  Sub-Saharan Africa is home to some of the oldest and some of the youngest (evolutionarily speaking) human distinctive populations, and they all tend to be dark, because being closer to the equator for a long time puts evolutionary pressure in this direction.  Scandinavians are much lighter than Indo-Europeans of the Indian subcontinent.  Southeast Asians and Polynesians are generally darker than Koreans and Japanese.  But none of that skin tone stuff has much of anything to do with broader "human family" relationships.  A Swede is liable to be genetically closer (in both eukaryote and mitochondria) to a Pakistani than to a Japanese, even if much closer in skin tone to the latter in many cases.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is highly likely that steatopygia was a tribal marker, to set the first modern humans apart from anyone else they encountered. It should be noted that the depigmentation gene SLC24A5 only shows up with the arrival of Anatolian/Turkish migrants 6,000 BC, while the venus figures are from the Aurignacian (35kya) or Gravettian (26k to 21kya). So obviously they would be black or darkskinned. Also, traces of early Out Of Africa haplogroup C have been found in Europe. Add steatopygia, and the first Europeans looked like the Bushmen or Pygmies, like the Andamanese Islanders (haplogroup D). 83.84.100.133 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing theory
Over a decade ago I encountered (in a reputable source) the theory that the figurines a) are not all the same thing, and b) that many of them, particularly the ones with no arms or arms that go behind the back, and with what appears to be a mask or head covering of some kind pulled down over the eyes, are actually a form of currency, and represent the trading of women captured from rival populations. This is obviously a pretty controversial idea, and pretty much the diametric opposite of the idea that these are goddess figurines. Probably should be mentioned if anyone can find anything on it. I have long since lost the source that I had (ca. 1991 or so). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * that they are not "all the same thing" would stand to reason, seeing that they span a period of 20 millennia(!). The slave-trade-currency idea does seem rather eccentric though. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Currency?! Even excluding the obvious fact that currency was not invented yet, why would people exchanging women need currency? If they were exchanging women for "stuff" (food, gear, etc.), then the woman exchanged herself would be the currency. And if they were trading women for other women, it'd be more like "I'll trade you these 5 scrawny teenagers for those 2 grade-A beauties" or something like that. Aadieu (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * i agree with aadieu that there are a few things against that theory. however i don't think it's all that more absurd than some of the other theories in this wiki-entry. if i follow your line of thought i would think more along the lines of 'trying to lure in women or bewitch women or some such, with a figurine'. whatever the case, it does indeed provide an (in my eyes very welcome) contrast to the 'women as goddesses' theory.


 * @dab i think he meant that those figures might have had different meanings in different periods and different tribes: maybe they were highly realistic in one place, but purely ritualistic in another.Selena1981 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a theory I'm, it's one that I have in reliable sources and so should be accounted for among the various other hypotheses in the article.  I'm asking if anyone happens to have sources for it, because I've lost mine.  And yes, we should make the point that there's no reason to think that they're all the same thing, over thousands of years.  Some have virtually nothing in common with others, besides being of women.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion?
Would the Idol of Pomos fit into this, admitedly, arbitrary group? WBardwin (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems a little late, being thousands of years after the Magdalenian period.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Connection to incised and painted Venus figures?
Connection to Venus figures in parietal art should at least be noted; there's even one included in the images section, i.e., the Venus of Laussel.helio 21:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliogabulus (talk • contribs)

Access to rich or plentiful foodstuffs
"The apparent obesity of the figures strongly implies a focus on fertility as, at the time of their construction, human society had not yet invented farming and did not have ready access to rich or plentiful foodstuffs." On the contrary, during the Pleistocene age, when these figures were produced, the Ice Age megafauna—mastadons, aurochs, wooly mammoths, not to mention plentiful horses and huge herds of reindeer—furnished plentiful game. The disappearance of these megafauna—and the retreat of the reindeer north—is thought to account in part for forced reliance on plant nutrition to a greater extent. Besides, fertility and physical health are not the same thing."Fertility" is often glibly invoked in connection with the Venus figurines without careful consideration of the particulars. Surviving skeletons from paleolithic and neolithic sites generally show that the former were healthier and more robust—which certainly suggests that they were better nourished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliogabulus (talk • contribs) 01:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Better nourished" and "obese" aren't synonyms, though, so even having access to more game meat doesn't address the rotund appearance of the "Venus" depictions. Regardless, arguing about whether foodstuffs really were plentiful or not is something for paleontologists and physical anthropologists and archaeologists and historical climatologists to do, not for Wikipedians to do.  We're supposed to be summarizing what the reliable sources say, not engaging in novel synthesis of conclusions we think we can get away with based on what they said. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Big game doesn't keep. Hunter gatherers feast and gorge themselves when a windfall excess of meat becomes available, and go hungry when they strike out. 2) For a prehistoric context, especially in non-hunting party members of the tribe, high BMI indeed equals "better nourished". Free of parasites and disease, not liable to starve to death anytime soon, not deficient in any nutrients = stone age picture of health. These people didn't commonly live to the advanced ages where moderate obesity correlates with a number of serious health risks. Heart attacks and diabetes were non-issues for them. Cold, hunger, not having the fat reserves to recover from being incacitated by injury or disease - that WAS all real.

Venus of Hradok?
The notable specimens table lists the Venus of Hradok as being a notable such specimen - but it also lists it as being 4KYA and made from mammoth ivory, which seems not completely implausible, but somewhat unreasonable. I can't actually find any substantive information on this specimen, so I've left it for now until I can dig a bit deeper, but does anyone else have a ready source for this specimen? Kate (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't, but have to observe that the Great Pyramids of Egypt had already been built by the time the last mammoths, a dwarf variety on a Siberian island, were hunted into extinction. I'd be more concerned not with whether the mammoth ivory makes sense for 4 KYA (and who says it had to have been a mammoth they killed then, rather than ivory found and harvested long, long after the animal died, something we do today ourselves still), but rather with whether something as recent as that is actually properly classifiable within the scope of this article at all, that's about 10 KY too late to even be Magdalenian.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find any useful English language sources. This might help but someone would have to be able to access and read the sources. It may be bone, not ivory. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Technology rather than religion
It is possible that the figuring were actually tools used to knit nets. That they widespread could be attributed to a the spread of technology that would have been very useful for the neolithic hunter gatherers. Evidence of nets used for hunting small game has been documented. The shape, and the grooves appear to be a tool. the lack of feet would have been important if it was used as some a spindle to weave nets. The variations in the figurines could be different techniques developed by net weavers and could also represent different net sizes.

If I found myself in thier world I would rather have a good net than a good spear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.174.247 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * seems a lot of work for a tool that might easily break and that would loose all intricate details when held in sweaty hands all day long.Selena1981 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable source for this idea?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Venus figurines as awards
I think during the glacial age,Venus figurines were fertility symbol dolls given to women who had twins, it is then past on to the next. That is why they are faceless, because they do not represent any one woman. I think these women probably had figures much like the figurines themselves.

BTW the large bottoms come from sitting on cold caves floors a lot. The ones with small bottoms could not have survive the cold.

I think such idea spread all over Europe and Asia Minor, where anatomically modern humans roamed, 50,000 years before present.

Birth and life was very very precious during the last glacial period. One can only imagine what joyous moment when twins were born.

Vanjohnwang (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

, I think you misunderstand the purpose of talk pages such as this one. They are to discuss changes to the article, and all material in the article needs to be based on what we call reliable sources, see WP:RS. They aren't intended as a venue to discuss the subject of the article. They aren't a forum of any sort. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that in subsistence cultures, the birth of twins is anything but joyous, and often leads to infanticide because there are not enough resources to rear two babies at once. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Leroy McDermott
The only problem with the way that McDermott was included in the article is that his contribution to the study of these objects was seriously underplayed. For instance, Douglass Bailey writes in Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic"In a major contribution to the study of figurines, Leroy McDermott and Catherine McCoid transformed our understanding of Upper Palaeolithic Venus figurines (McDermott 1996; McCoid and McDermott 1996). Their work is important because it approaches the material from the point of view of the person who made the objects. McDermott and McCoid sec parallels between the particular and standardized proportions of female Venus figurines and the view that a pregnant woman would have of her own body (fig. 1.4). Their approach has radical implications for the way we think about Upper Palaeolithic figurines but also for looking at Neolithic anthropomorphs. The status of the image shifts."

McDermott is also mentioned in Anthropology: The Human Challenge By William Haviland, Harald Prins, Dana Walrath, Bunny McBride. and a number of other books and journal articles. He has an article: McDermott, LeRoy D. (1996) "Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines." Current Anthropology, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 227-275 which will have responses from other anthropologists. McCoid should probably be mentioned also. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting me, Doug. I've reverted myself on McDermott. I didn't know he was anything special. Leadwind  (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"between 3 cm and 40 cm or more in height"
The article says that the known Venus figurines are all "between 3 cm and 40 cm or more in height." That does not define a range. All it means is that they are all at least three centimeters high, because "40 cm or more" does not describe an upper limit. It should be easy enough, for somebody familiar with the subject, to determine the actual upper limit of height for known Venus figurines, and to add that to this article. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Venus figurines" or "Paleolithic Venus figurines"
The article narrowly defines "Venus figurines" as "Upper-Paleolithic" Venus figurines. In the context of the article title, the problem with this definition is that there are notable stone-age or prehistoric "Venus figurines" that are not paleolithic. (Clearly, there are also Venus figurines from historical times, but the meaning and interpretation of those seems strongly different.) Tacitly removing connections to prehistoric (but non-palaeolithic) Venus figurines does not seem to help the overall clarity of the topic.

I would suggest that perhaps the article should be renamed to "Paleolithic Venus figurines." Also Template:Venus figurines should be likewise renamed (unless other notable specimens (with articles) are included in this template). Then the namespace "Venus figurines" would be available for disambiguation or a broader definition, or whatever else may grow. Just my $0.02. Cheers, Stan J. Klimas (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Any objections to renaming this article from "Venus figurines" to "Paleolithic Venus figurines"? Cheers.  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As we don't have an article on Venus figurines from any other period, I'm not sure what the point would be? If pieces from other periods are described in reliable sources as "Venus figurines", they can be included in this article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings . There are "Venus figurines" (commonly called "Venus") from periods other than Upper Paleolithic, e.g., Venus of Langenzersdorf. It would be nice to have at least a list of those, or a category. But how would one name it? The generic name space (Venus figurines) is occupied but something more specific (Palaeolithic Venus figurines).  On the other hand, one readily understands that figurines of Upper Palaeolithic are just so distinctive or defining for humanity of that time that one want to clearly delineate the subject mater. I thought that the solution I suggested should be easy, clean, and uncontroversial. But other solutions may be also be good.   Stan J. Klimas (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think simply adding a section on post-Palaeolithic venuses would be fine. Looking through the history of the article, I see that there was once one in this article, but it was removed by a certain tenacious editor with a very fixed idea of what a "Venus figurine" is. But they're out of line with policy on that: if something is described as a Venus figurine in reliable sources, then we can include it here. I think I'll go ahead and restore that section. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding any statuette which is called "venus" is not fine, because then there is no limit at all. Even Roman sculptures or modern ones had be added since they are often called "Venus of xy". The term "Venus figurines" is used for paleolithic figurines. See also f. i. the German and the Danish article. Mr. bobby (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The limit is what reliable sources call "Venus figurines". That is all we should be concerned with. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You mention German (Venusfigurinen) etc articles, but not the Russian (Венеры палеолита="Venuses of Paleolith"), French (Vénus paléolithique = "Paleolithic Venus"), etc. While we love all the languages the same, I think that the 2nd group got the title more correct, and the first slightly less correct, for two separate reasons: To reflect the concept the article wants to talk about as of today, it (1) should be no "figurine", and (2) should be "paleolithic". Better with no "figurine" because some of the depictions my be not figurines, e.g., Venus of Laussel. Better with "Paleolithic", because the article wants to be about the arrival of the modern human mind, and some non-Paleolilthic depictions may speak to the topic. So to summarise, I think that the Russians and the French are right again, just in my personal opinion :)  Happy New Year and thank you very much for your contributions!  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The limit is NOT what articles call a venus figurine, because there are even Roman "Venus figurines". The article has given a definition of the term "Venus figurine" which is of course used in MOST OFT HE SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES in a very narrow sense. So it is used for paleolithic figurines.
 * You both destroy a good article and make it broad and useless. Especially john roe is expanding it in the most useless way. Now, thw WP-article is not giving us more insight, but makes the term synonymously to "sculpture of a female body" or even more useless: "any sculture of a female body just any guy calls "Venus"". AND the "Venus of Laussel" is called a Venus, but is simply not a figurine and DOES NOT BELONG TO THE GRUOP OF VENUS FIGURINES. It is just a relief of a female body. Befor the article was clear, now a desaster. 17:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. bobby (talk • contribs)

Please provide some sources that back up this very narrow definition. You can't simply shout and edit war it into being correct. There are pieces from after the Palaeolithic that are referred to as Venuses in reliable sources (e.g. the Venus of Langenzersdorf, the Orkney Venus, the Jōmon Venus, the Venus of Chiozza) and you have presented no policy-based reason for excluding them. A putative connection between Palaeolithic Venuses and later female figurines, as discussed (imperfectly, but it's a start) in the section you have edit-warred out of the article, is also discussed extensively in the literature and is therefore a significant aspect of this topic that we need to include. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

you may not break logical rules or contradict the definition of the article in the article! and again: you insist to have a broad definition that includes every sculpture depicting a female body (klimas even includes a relief - which means icluding ALL depictions of a female ever made and called "Venus".) the term "venus figurines" makes sense if restricted to paleolithic statuettes. if neolithic sculptures are included one can add also bronze age, roman age, middle ages and contemporary sculpture. and then we have the end of a useful article. the term "venus" was consciously chosen for a female stone age depiction, the writers knowing that "venus" was Roman goddess. The "Venus of Langenzersdorf" hat thousands of sisters also called "Venus". This is not relevant. It is only a name. Obviously most of scientific literature uses the term in a narrow sense. And a broad sense would have no limits at all. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a demarcated section on later prehistoric figures, with a sentence or so in the lead to introduce them, is fine. Cartainly we don't want Roman etc figures here. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see how the extra section re-introduced to the article "destroys a good article and makes it broad and useless". One may like or dislike the content of this section, but at least it provides some context. Let's hope that, with a clear demarcation, it is satisfactory for everybody. Happy New Year. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also don't see a problem. Full disclosure, I reported Mr. bobby and he's been blocked for as I recall a week, as he edit warred over this issue last month also. Doug Weller  talk 19:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Porno masturbation tools
Scientists claim they may be the earliest pornographic tools, see Paul Mellars remark: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14venus.html?_r=0

Zezen (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The linked story doesn't say anything like that. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)