Rough Notes:

PURE Insights
Volume 4 Article 7
2015
Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and
Interpretations of Prehistoric Gender
Representations
Kaylea R. Vandewettering
Western Oregon University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/pure
Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Other Feminist, Gender, and
Sexuality Studies Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@WOU. It has been accepted for inclusion in PURE Insights by an
authorized administrator of Digital Commons@WOU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended Citation
Vandewettering, Kaylea R. (2015) "Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and Interpretations of Prehistoric Gender Representations,"
PURE Insights: Vol. 4, Article 7.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/pure/vol4/iss1/7
Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and Interpretations of Prehistoric
Gender Representations
Abstract
Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Venus figurines pose an interesting challenge for archaeologists. Scholars
who have studied these prehistoric representations of the female form have reached a variety of conclusions
that may be better seen as a reflection of modern sociocultural values and ideals than being representative of
the peoples who made the Venuses. I argue that by transposing our own ideals onto the Venus figurines, we act
as colonizers and appropriators of the past. Reviewing archaeological literature regarding the Venuses, we gain
a sense of the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches to interpreting representations of gender. These
lessons serve as a starting point for constructing archaeological methods of interpreting representations of
gender and gender relations in a way that more accurately reflects the ancient peoples who crafted these
figurines.
Keywords
Upper Paleolithic, Venus figurines, gender, feminist archeology, Goddess movement
This article is available in PURE Insights: http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/pure/vol4/iss1/7
A publication of the Program for Undergraduate Research Experiences at Western Oregon University
digitalcommons.wou.edu/pure ©2015
Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and Interpretations of Prehistoric
Gender Representations
Kaylea R. Vandewettering, Department of Anthropology, Western Oregon University
Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Venus figurines pose an interesting challenge for archaeologists.
Scholars who have studied these prehistoric representations of the female form have reached a variety of
conclusions that may be better seen as a reflection of modern sociocultural values and ideals than being
representative of the peoples who made the Venuses. I argue that by transposing our own ideals onto the
Venus figurines, we act as colonizers and appropriators of the past. Reviewing archaeological literature
regarding the Venuses, we gain a sense of the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches to
interpreting representations of gender. These lessons serve as a starting point for constructing
archaeological methods of interpreting representations of gender and gender relations in a way that more
accurately reflects the ancient peoples who crafted these figurines.
Keywords: Upper Paleolithic, Venus figurines, gender, feminist archeology, Goddess movement
Introduction
During the Upper Paleolithic, which lasted from
50,000 to 10,000 years ago, representations of the female
form, called “Venus” figurines, were created. Since their
initial discovery they have been controversial, even
spawning a quasi-religious movement in some modern
feminist circles (Rountree 2001). These statuettes
emerged from the ground and into a world where scholars
have tried to interpret them through their own sociocultural
frame of reference and ideologies, thereby appropriating
the Venuses and acting as colonizers of the Upper
Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who created these figurines. In
doing so, I believe that many reductionist theories have
emerged regarding the Venuses, Upper Paleolithic
representations of gender, and inferences about gender
relations. In this paper I examine anthropological
perspectives used to interpret these figurines. I will explore
assumptions and underlying problems regarding
creatorship of the Venus figurines, and some proposed
interpretations of the figurines along with their implications.
I will discuss inherent flaws in our current understanding of
the Venuses and the Upper Paleolithic people that they
represent, and propose alternative methods of
understanding representations of gender, gender
relationships and social dynamics in prehistoric societies
through the interpretation of their artifacts.
The Venus Figurines
Small figurines depicting the female form, as
evidenced by the depiction of primary and secondary sex
characteristics, were first brought to the attention of
modern society during the 1890s when they were
discovered in southwestern France and northern Italy by
Edouard Petite and Salomon Reinach, respectively
(McDermott 1996). These statuettes are the earliest
examples of art created in the human image, the oldest of
which was discovered in 2008 at Hohle Fels cave in
Germany, dated to over 35,000 years old (Curry 2012).
Since their initial discovery, hundreds of figurines of Upper
Paleolithic origin have been found. A wide variety of
images exist; many are obviously female, some are male,
others lack obvious gender, and still others are
anthropomorphic animal figures.
These female figurines, known as Venuses, have
been found stretching across Eurasia from southern
France to Siberia, as shown in Figure 1. These figurines
are small in stature, standing on average 150mm in height,
small enough to be held in the hand (McDermott 1996).
They were made from a variety of raw materials, such as
stone, bone, ivory, jet, hematite, limonite, horse teeth, and
fired loess (Beck 2000). It has been hypothesized that they
were being made from perishable materials long before the
oldest known Venuses were created (Russell 1998). The
figurines vary in form as well; some are highly stylized and
abstract, others detailed and exceptionally realistic, and
still others rough and unfinished (Beck 2000). Figure 2
shows three of these figurines. The Venuses have
generally been characterized as being faceless, grotesque,
rotund, and having exaggerated sex organs (Nelson 1990),
while others argue that a great deal of diversity exists
among the statuettes (Rice 1981).
Vandewettering | Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines: Interpreting Gender
PURE Insights Volume 4, Issue 1
Figure 1 Venus figurines have been discovered across the
European continent; some locations where Venuses have been
found are depicted on the map above (map created by author,
using Hitchcock 2014).
The people of the Upper Paleolithic who created
these Venus figurines were nomadic hunter-gatherers. The
Upper Paleolithic, from roughly 50,000-10,000 years ago,
predates the advent of agriculture, and marks a transition
to modern human cognitive behavior and the advent of
many new technologies. Examples of these changes
include, but are not limited to, increasingly sophisticated
blades and hunting tools, routine use of body decoration,
and the appearance of artwork in the form of carved
figurines or paintings and engravings on cave walls (BarYosef
2002: 365-366). Behavioral changes coincide with
changes in the climate; the Last Glacial Maximum was
followed by a period of oscillation between warm and wet,
then cold and dry. The creation of these Venuses can be
seen as a response to the world in which they lived (BarYosef
2002).
Androcentric and Feminist Interpretation and
Appropriations
Androcentrism, or the practice of treating males or
masculine world views as the center for one’s world view
and interpreting culture and history as such, has been
common practice in much of western scholarship.
Androcentric interpretations of the Venus figurines were
the starting point for archaeological understandings of this
Upper Paleolithic art form. Androcentric interpretations of
these figurines largely focus on men as the creators of the
figurines, with an objectified understanding of
representations of females. This androcentric approach
was a reflection of sociocultural values of the Victorian era
during which they were found, and an interpretive bias that
disallows other possible, indeed probable, explanations.
These interpretations did not arise with malicious intent,
but the effects were damaging and despite the passage of
time, androcentric perspectives of the Venus figurines are
still common (Nelson 1990). By ignoring the possibility of
female agency, and trying to understand the complex
nature of the Venuses in oversimplified terms, the
interpretive framework reduces all possible answers to
whether or not they can be situated into a simple
understanding.
In an effort to counter androcentric tendencies that
dominated Western scholarship, feminist scholarship,
which emerged during the second feminist movement of
the 1960s and 1970s, works to challenge received wisdom
in academia regarding gender and gender relationships.
Interpretations given to the Venuses began to be
scrutinized during this time, allowing for new
understandings to emerge. Efforts have been made by a
number of scholars to re-conceptualize gender in
archaeology, including what is meant by gender, how the
material culture of a people reflects social relationships,
amongst other reforms to approaching gender-related
items (Conkey 1997).
Out of this same feminist movement came the
modern Goddess movement. The Goddess movement is 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 (Rountree 2001: 6). Goddess
feminists are also associated with the feminist agenda of
the 1960s and 1970s, and have portrayed the Venus
figurines as representations of the Upper Paleolithic panEuropean
Mother Goddess, a deification of female
sexuality and fecundity (Russell 1998). Much of this
movement has been mythologized, with literature largely
reflecting popular views rather than archaeological
evidence. Some attempts at combining modern mythology
and academia have been made, resulting in poor
scholarship based on cherry picking through the
archaeological record, much to the chagrin of feminist
archaeologists still attempting to make a name for
themselves in a traditionally male-dominated field
(Rountree 2001).
Interpretations of the Purpose and Function of the
Venus
As varied as the approaches to understanding the
Venus figurines have been, interpretations of their
authorship, meaning and function are even more diverse.
To explore the varied interpretations, I begin by discussing
the question of creatorship, including assumptions of male
agency and a recent study with compelling evidence for
female self-representation (McDermott 1996). I then
examine some overarching themes in the scholarly
literature regarding the possible meanings and functions of
Vandewettering | Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines: Interpreting Gender
PURE Insights Volume 4, Issue 1
the Venus figurines. These themes include: sex, fertility
and beauty; religious functions and matrifocal societies;
and representations of actual people with practical
functions.
It traditionally has been assumed that the Venus
figurines were created by men to serve male agendas as
erotic representations of sexuality, beauty and fertility. This
androcentric view of the Venuses has been espoused both
in archaeological and art history scholarship. For example
Berenguer, as quoted by Nelson, questioned “How did the
artist’s vision, which reflected the ideal of his time, see
her? For as with man, we can never know what she really
looked like…so we have to make do with the version her
companion, man, had of her” (1990:16). This leaves no
room for doubt that the use of “man” in this context is not
generic, but specific to the male sex. In a similar way,
Leroi-Gourhan is also quoted by Nelson as mentioning that
the “first figurines representing man – or at least his wife,”
(1990:16) which once again demonstrates androcentric
understandings of who was making the figurines and for
whom they were intended. The androcentric understanding
of the figurines assumes that women were acted upon,
rather than exerting any agency over themselves or their
image.
A challenge to the androcentric line of thinking has
been issued however, by McCoid and McDermott, and
research has since been conducted that hypothesizes the
Venus figurines were a form of self-representation by
Upper Paleolithic female creators. McCoid and McDermott
argue that rather than viewing women as “passive
spectators”, the statuettes were created by women through
the only means of self-examination available to them
(1996). For example, proportions that seem stylized when
viewed from the front, back, and sides, take on an entirely
different appearance when observed from the top down.
During the Upper Paleolithic, mirrors were unavailable, and
for a woman to know what she looked like, she could only
look down upon herself. By recreating that perspective with
modern photography, it has been shown that the view of a
woman looking down upon her own body would appear
similar to the view looking down on a Venus. McDermott
and McCoid argue that this perspective would explain why
many Venuses lack defined faces, possess smaller heads,
and why the legs seem to disappear to a point in what has
Figure 2 From left to right are the Brassempouy Venus, Moravany Venus, and Yeliseevichi Venus. These
Venuses are vastly different in style, level of detail and portrayal of the female form; this variety has
not traditionally been acknowledged in descriptions of the Venuses (Hitchcock 2013, 2014). Photos:
Cropped to front view only from Front and side view of the Venus of Brassempouy by Jean-Gilles
Berizzi/Public Domain; Venus von Moravany by Don Hitchcock at donsmaps.com/Permission granted
by photographer; The Yeliseevichi venus figure by Don Hitchcock at donsmaps.com/Permission granted
by photographer.
Vandewettering | Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines: Interpreting Gender
PURE Insights Volume 4, Issue 1
been termed the “lozenge composition” by the French
archaeologist Andre Leroi-Gourhan (McDermott 1996:
228). While we may never have any conclusive evidence
to prove one way or another who was creating these
figurines, this simple shift in our perspective of the Venus
figurines as being created by either males or females
opens up a whole range of interpretations that were
previously unavailable, and thus unexamined.
A common theme to interpretations of the Venuses is
to describe them as representations of fertility, sexual
desire, and beauty. This idea has been repeated since
they were first discovered, and is still touted in scholarly
literature today (Nelson 1990). Much of the literature to this
effect assumes male agency in their creation. Berenguer
theorized that these statuettes were expressions of “man’s
obsessive need for women who would bear him lots of
children” (Russell 1998:262), and are frequently described
as “heavily pregnant”, as Ardrey states (Russell 1998:263).
Another theory regarding the use of the figurines, as
proposed by Augusta, was that they functioned to ward off
difficulties in childbirth, although the rationale behind this
theory was not provided (Russell 1998:263). They were
also thought to be portrayals of Upper Paleolithic beauty
standards and expressions of sexuality. When discussing
the Venuses, Mellaart asserted that eroticism in art “was
inevitably connected with male impulse and desire”
(Russell 1998:263); Seltman reflected, “these figurines
must indicate what the men who produced them found
interesting and desirable” (Russell 1998:263). Again, these
interpretations are largely androcentric in that they assume
male agency, and serve male goals.
I believe it is necessary to challenge some underlying
assumptions for several reason. First, evidence that men
created these figurines is inconclusive. There is no way it
can be determined that the Venuses were created by men
and only by men that stands up to the scrutiny of
reasonable doubt; this serves as an example of the ways
the received knowledge can color our perceptions. Next, it
is assumed by the Victorian-era archaeologists who found
the figurines that nudity indicated eroticism, as it has more
recently, but it is unlikely that the people of the Upper
Paleolithic viewed nudity as western society does today. In
this way, we are imposing our own cultural standards and
values upon ancient peoples. Third, it is probably incorrect
to view fertility as a goal of hunter-gatherer peoples. It is
more likely that they tried to control the frequency of
pregnancy due to constraints imposed by mobility needs
and subsistence strategies, as can be evidenced by
modern hunter-gatherer groups (Rice 1981). This is
another way in which we impose the values of our society
upon the makers of the Venus figurines, something that
academia needs to be wary of (Conkey 1997).
Another common theme in scholarly examinations of
the Venus figurines is they served a religious function or
reflected matrifocal social organization. This line of thought
has become heavily entwined with the Goddess
movement, and myths of matrifocal societies worshiping a
pan-European Mother Goddess (Rountree 2001). There
are many problems with these lines of inquiry. First, there
is no evidence to prove or disprove the existence of
matrifocal societies in the Upper Paleolithic, and as such
the assertion is inherently flawed. There is also no
evidence of a pan-European monotheism during the Upper
Paleolithic (Russell 1998). In fact, the very concept of
widespread monotheism is highly reminiscent of modern
Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition of one god, and only
one god. A number of scholars have attempted to entwine
mythology with archaeology, resulting in poor scholarship
(Rountree 2001). The resulting literature has been met
with accusations of “hijacking” the figurines for “purposes
other than academic archaeological study,” per Hamilton
(Rountree 2001:8). It has been suggested that, if indeed
the Venuses represent a Goddess, it is better to think of
her as “one in a varied pantheon of male, female and
sexless supernatural beings”, which better addresses the
variety of figurines found that are not female. Other
interpretations viewing the Venus figurines as serving a
religious function, as proposed by Ucko, purport that the
figurines were the function of priestess or initiation figure,
or as a protective talisman over dwelling places per
Waechter (Russell 1998:266-267).
There are others who suggest more practical
functions of the Venuses and their interpretation, which is
the third common theme I address in this paper. Patricia
Rice hypothesized that the Venuses were representations
of women throughout the lifespan (1981). Through this
study, Rice assigned the figures to three different age
groups and compared composition of the figurines to
modern hunter-gatherer peoples. Rice found a strong
correlation between age representation in the Venuses
and composition of modern hunter-gatherers, which led
her to conclude that it is the lifespan being depicted rather
than just the reproductive years. Abramova offers another
suggestion as to what is being depicted, noting that the
Venus figurines and other Upper Paleolithic figurines were
simply portraits of actual ancestral people. Other practical
uses suggested by scholars include: good luck amulets;
puppets or dolls for children; worry stones; representations
of witches; or figurines intended to keep strangers away
(Russell 1998:266-267).
Current Understandings and Future Potential
Having reviewed the frameworks used for
understanding the Venus figurines, and interpretations that
have arisen, I believe that it is safe to say there is room for
Vandewettering | Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines: Interpreting Gender
PURE Insights Volume 4, Issue 1
improvement in our approach to understanding the Venus
figurines. These enigmatic figures have taken hold of the
imagination for over a century, producing interpretations
that I would argue are more indicative of our own society’s
values and beliefs, and our ideals and desires for the
future. The Venus has acted as a mirror through which we
can understand our own perceptions of gender and gender
relationships, but also serves as a strong example of why
archaeologists must be wary of bias in interpretation.
Furthermore, interpretations of the Venus figurines
illustrate the need for archaeological constructs that
acknowledge prehistoric societies and their social
dynamics that acknowledges different approaches to
gender. When conducting archaeology of gender
relationships and depictions of gender, we must tread
cautiously or risk creating a past that is suspiciously like
society today.
It is important that scholars take great care when
conducting research and drawing conclusions about
prehistoric peoples. It is an impossible expectation to find
a researcher completely void of bias, but when dealing
with the remains of an archaeological culture that is
incapable of speaking for itself, archaeologists must be
careful to avoid reproducing their own culture’s gender
roles, ideals or sociopolitical organization (Conkey 1997).
By attaching our own values to their material culture, we
act as colonizers intent upon making what was theirs seem
more like ours and providing further justification for our
own worldview. We also must be cautious not to right the
wrongs of past interpretations, colored by an androcentric
worldview, by veering so far into feminism that we end up
creating our own idealized concept of the prehistoric world
(Rountree 2001). Drawing conclusions without adequate
evidence is inappropriate, no matter what “side” one is on,
and therefore, should be avoided. I also assert that the
people of the past may not have been as concerned with
gender as modern people are, and that a binary
interpretation of gender is unlikely to reflect the people of
the Upper Paleolithic (Clark 2003). In addition, I would
emphasize that responsible archaeology regarding gender
depictions and relations involves addressing one’s own
cultural bias (Conkey 1997), and challenging some of our
common misconceptions about the way we view objects,
such as binary views on gender, and acknowledging
objects as dynamic facets of social relationships (Orton
2010). It is important to recognize that the Venuses are but
one depiction of women from the Upper Paleolithic; any
conclusions we draw about the men and women who
created and used the Venuses based solely upon the
figurines would reduce the complex and nuanced nature of
human society to a single aspect of their material culture. If
we want to understand the gender dynamic that existed in
Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherer groups, we need to
gather information from a variety of sources available to us
in order to make well-rounded inferences about gender
role (Gibbs 1998).
Conclusion
Since their discovery, the Venus figurines have been
an endless source of fascination for the scholarly
community. These figurines were created by nomadic
hunter-gatherers across Eurasia during the Upper
Paleolithic, are diverse in form, and have sparked
numerous interpretations. Initial emphasis on androcentric
interpretations has begun to give way under the scrutiny of
feminist archaeologists since the 1960s and 1970s and
archaeological knowledge has been merged with
mythology with the genesis of the modern Goddess
movement. Interpretations range from the Venuses as
representations of sexuality, fertility, beauty, religious
objects, indications of matrifocal social organization, to
serving many other practical purposes. Both old and new
understandings must be passed under the strictest
scrutiny to ensure minimization of bias in interpretation. I
assert that it is of the utmost importance to interpret
objects representing gender, and thereby interpretations
that assume gender relations and social dynamics, in a
manner that avoids reductionist theories. Theories must be
based upon as many different aspects of gender
representation as is possible, or the picture we get of
prehistoric peoples is likely to be a misrepresentation. By
learning to understand gender and the manifold ways it is
represented in prehistory, we can gain a richer
appreciation of the people and material culture that have
come since.
Dr. Robin Smith served as faculty sponsor for the
submission of this article to PURE Insights.
Sources
Bar-Yosef, Ofer
2002 The Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Annual Review of
Anthropology 31:363-393.
Beck, Margaret
2000 Female Figurines in the European Upper Paleolithic:
Politics and Bias in Archaeological Interpretation. In
Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the
Archaeological Record. Allison E. Rautman, ed. Pp. 202-
214. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Clark, Sharri R.
2003 Representing the Indus Body: Sex, Gender, Sexuality,
and the Anthropomorphic Terracotta Figurines from
Harappa. Asian Perspectives 42(2):304-328.
Conkey, Margaret W.
1997[1993] Men and Women in Prehistory: An
Archaeological Challenge. In Gender in Cross-Cultural
Vandewettering | Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines: Interpreting Gender
PURE Insights Volume 4, Issue 1
Perspective. 2nd edition. Caroline B. Brettell and Carolyn F.
Sargent, eds. Pp. 57-66. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Curry, Andrew
2012 Truth and Beauty: The discovery of a 40,000-year-old
figurine reignites debate among archaeologists about the
origin – and true purpose- of art. Smithsonian. 42(11):28.
Hitchcock, Don
2013 The Moravany Venus.
http://www.donsmaps.com/moravanyvenus.html, accessed
November 25, 2014.
2014 The Ceramic Venus of Dolni Vestonice.
http://www.donsmaps.com/dolnivenus.html,
accessed November 25, 2014.
2014 Brassempouy Venus.
http://www.donsmaps.com/brassempouyvenus.html,
accessed November 25, 2014.
2014 Venus Figures from the Stone Age arranged
alphabetically. http://www.donsmaps.com/venus.html,
accessed November 25, 2014.
2014 Venus Figures from Russia, the Ukraine and East of
the Donau mouth.
http://www.donsmaps.com/ukrainevenus.html#yelisee,
accessed November 25, 2014.
Gibbs, Liv
1998 Identifying Gender Representation in the
Archaeological Record: A Contextual Study. In Reader in
Gender Archaeology. Kelley Hays-Gilpin and David S.
Whitley, eds. Pp. 231-254.
McCoid, Catherine Hodge and LeRoy D. McDermott
1996 Decolonizing Gender: Female Vision in the Upper
Paleolithic. American Anthropologist, New Series 98(2):319-
326.
McDermott, LeRoy
1996 Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female
Figurines. Current Anthropology 37(2):227-275.
Nelson, Sarah
1990 Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic “Venus” Figurines
and Archaeological Mythology. Archaeological Papers of
the American Anthropological Association 2(1):11-22.
Orton, David
2010 Both subject and object: herding, inalienability and
sentient property in prehistory. World Archaeology
42(2):188-200.
Rice, Patricia
1981 Prehistoric Venuses: Symbols of Motherhood or
Womanhood? Journal of Anthropological Research
37(4):402-414.
Rountree, Kathryn
2001 The Past is a Foreigners’ Country: Goddess
Feminists, Archaeologists, and the Appropriation of
Prehistory. Journal of Contemporary Religion 16(1):5-27.
Russell, Pamela
1998 The Paleolithic Mother-Goddess: Fact or Fiction? In
Reader in Gender Archaeology. Kelley Hays-Gilpin and
David S. Whitley, eds. Pp. 261-268. New York, NY:
Routledge