Talk:Venus figurines of Mal'ta

Puzzled by some inconsistencies
I am puzzled by some inconsistencies in this article:

1) In the lede, we read:


 * Some of these figurines are on display at the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.

but in the section Discovery, last sentence, we read:


 * About 23,000 years old, they were carved from mammoth ivory and are displayed at the Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg. [italics mine]

Which is it -- some of the figurines or all of the figurines are displayed at the Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg?

2) The second half of the paragraph in Style is the following:


 * On the other hand, one can argue that as a group the Mal'ta Venus figures are rather different from the female figurines of Western and Central Europe. For example, none of the Siberian specimens indicates abdominal enlargement as main European examples do, and as breasts are often lacking, few offer clear enough evidence of gender to define them as female. More conclusively, nearly half of them show some facial details, something which is lacking on the so-called Venus figures of Europe. [italics added]

Everything following "For example" describes differences between Siberian (ie., Mal'ta) female figurines and those of Western and Central Europe. The Siberian figurines are described as:


 * not demonstrating abdominal enlargement
 * often lacking in breasts, and
 * often (nearly 50%) showing some facial details.

Looking at the one image in the article of a female figurine from Siberia (Mal'ta), that figurine:


 * demonstrates abdominal enlargement
 * has breasts, and
 * doesn't seem to have any facial details.

I don't see how that image corresponds to the details that distinguish Siberian (Mal'ta) figurines from Western/Central European figurines.

Perhaps someone who familiar with this subject could clarify these two inconsistencies. Dougweller
 * I know you've been following the main article on Mal'ta-Buret' culture. Perhaps you could shed some light on this for me. CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above inconsistencies have been resolved. The old image was removed with  because it was not Mal'tese.  It was from a different excavation, a Venus of Gagarino.  I uploaded a new image to that filename, so all the wikis now have a correct illustration of a Mal'ta Venus.  I also corrected the problems with the text.  Ya'll have a great day!   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  16:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * See below for updates.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  01:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Some corrections and hints
The new picture of one of the Venusfigurines from Mal'ta is only taken from a copy/facsimile.

Presumably, ALL venus figuriesn from Mal'ta are on display in the Hermitage museum.

See for this particular figurine:

http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/!ut/p/a1/pZDNboMwEIRfJTlwdL1gDOSIaFUpUkpLVQX7ghxjiBuwSbDaPn7NrZf0R93T7mr17cxgjmvMjXjTvXDaGjEsM0-aMs-TkBSwLQt6C3lZPdKqeLiHMMZ7zDEfTI9Zq5ZWGje5I2YnMeq5USaAd3s5zSvbrcTFBRDRG9_Io1B2sL2WYlj2uhPSzYEHQkhhs4AmqVvMNkTFsaARkiqVKM5Cgg4htIhuojQD6EJJDl4k8yLhSuXwKw_fE5h_kV5jJLsIPy-MfbFrnl7uKn_9JZI_ONn-JNVb1a_nM8990tY49eFw_b-op3HMyIhqQIJlhA59vl5_AtWsQ-A!/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?lng=de

This particular Venus figurine clearly has facial features. One can even see this on the foto of this copy! Mr. bobby (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you, . That is a great picture of the figurine you found!  Unfortunately, according to the Hermitage's image use policy, the museum owns exclusive rights to the image.  You may be correct about the Prague image being a cast/copy of the actual figurine; however, the Prague NM does borrow pieces from time to time and then returns them, so it might also be the actual figurine on display for a limited time.  I found nothing on the Prague museum's website to say one way or the other.  The photographer of the original image was not focusing on the Mal'ta figurine, and the lighting and shadows were not favorable for a real good look at the detailed features of the Mal'ta.  Thank you for taking all this on and improving this article!   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  01:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * look at the whole picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prehistoric_Times_of_Bohemia,_Moravia_and_Slovakia_-_NM_Prague_69.JPG

the loveless presentation shows only reproductions, not just the originals. YOU have to proof that it is the original! Mr. bobby (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the "proof" is in the fact that the museum does not represent those figurines as "facsimiles" or "copies" or anything else that would indicate they are not the originals on loan to the museum. Museums always tell their patrons whether or not their displays are copies of the originals.  When they don't specify that they are facsimiles, then one cannot assume that they are facsimiles.  So how can you be so sure that they are not the original figurines on loan to the museum?   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Kozuch, the editor who took the original photograph, can shed some light on all this?  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at this photograph, which shows the label and title of the Prague museum's exhibit. There is nothing there nor on the description cards in front of each exhibit that tells us they are copies or facsimiles.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The whole exhibition on this photograph is careless. The sign "Willendorf" is without an object. It is not usual, to present a real paleolithic figurine the way it is seen on the photo. The wild mixture (Italian, Russian, Austrian) seems to be a hint to facsimiles. These objects are not housed in Prague. So let's stay to presume it were fasimiles until one proofs something else. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)