I’ve always had one question about the idea that the figurines were women carving themselves from what they could see looking down at their own bodies : How did they do the buttocks?
Very interesting. I think a better source for considering Gimbutas in historical context than Meskell, who was one of a generation of putatively feminist archaeologists who built a fair bit of their own careers by trashing her, is Charlene Spretnak: https://www.archaeomythology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Spretnak-Journal-7.pdf
It's an especially useful read in light of the fact that on the invasion hypothesis, aDNA proved Gimbutas more or less right
about the fatness of some of the figurines: Elaine Morgan made the point that say what you will about the Venus of Willendorf, whoever made her had seen a fat woman. This does fly fascinatingly in the face of current imaginings of "the Paleo diet" being a ticket to ripped abs for all. aDNA is unlikely to help much here, as the phenotype isn't always readable off of the genotype: fatness is in large part a matter of diet. the reconstruction of Paleolithic European diet and lifestyle is an inexact science, but it would be interesting to see reconstructions that -- rather than assuming scarcity and leanness -- explored how fatness might have been achieved. Maybe elite women were fattened up, sort of the same way that cranial modifications marked elite status in other societies?
A really informative read! The discovery of the pregnant woman in a shell cap and its potential connection to the "Venus" of Willendorf figure is especially interesting. Thanks for the synopsis and including the bibliography, too!
I have always been interested in the Venus figurines, I remember hearing the "women carving themselves" interpretation years ago and it seemed to make sense.
It also brings to mind a couple things. One is that, in my observation, women going through pregnancy seem to develop totemic behaviors, i.e. must do certain actions, have certain items, etc. for no other reason than to reassure themselves. This extends to long and convoluted birth plans and such (thankfully, my wife did not go for that).
Second, it makes me think of Lilith bowls of the ancient Levant. Some similarities, but a lot of differences as well, still struck me as being related, maybe in function? Protection from evil spirits? I'm not sure. Very interesting though!
You need to think symbolically. I have a Naga carving from some sort of tree root. They were (are?) headhunters. The image is a crudely formed human head. The roots are hair and the trunk the face. There’s a carefully crafted metal ornament dangling from one ear. I have learned not to point this object in my direction. I’m not kidding.
Mimicking captures the particular spirit. That’s why puppets can appear so sinister. Because they mimic the dark side. Doppelgangers. Dancing, rituals, images, etc. imitate a supernatural power in order to make it manifest. In this case, the choice of stone as the medium might have some bearing. Also, producing the same type of image over and over for thousands of years suggests a kind of ritual or ceremony.
Imagine a rewrite of your article as fiction from the far future, replace the figurines with copies of playboy, and ask yourself what you think...
On the 'ages', the Golden Age/Silver Age/Bronze Age/Iron Age/Future Age model was ubiquitous millennia ago: the basis of Greek myth, used in the book of Daniel etc. The replacement of gold and silver with stone was just inverting the old scheme, replacing a belief in decay with a belief in progress.
I’ve always had one question about the idea that the figurines were women carving themselves from what they could see looking down at their own bodies : How did they do the buttocks?
Very interesting. I think a better source for considering Gimbutas in historical context than Meskell, who was one of a generation of putatively feminist archaeologists who built a fair bit of their own careers by trashing her, is Charlene Spretnak: https://www.archaeomythology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Spretnak-Journal-7.pdf
It's an especially useful read in light of the fact that on the invasion hypothesis, aDNA proved Gimbutas more or less right
about the fatness of some of the figurines: Elaine Morgan made the point that say what you will about the Venus of Willendorf, whoever made her had seen a fat woman. This does fly fascinatingly in the face of current imaginings of "the Paleo diet" being a ticket to ripped abs for all. aDNA is unlikely to help much here, as the phenotype isn't always readable off of the genotype: fatness is in large part a matter of diet. the reconstruction of Paleolithic European diet and lifestyle is an inexact science, but it would be interesting to see reconstructions that -- rather than assuming scarcity and leanness -- explored how fatness might have been achieved. Maybe elite women were fattened up, sort of the same way that cranial modifications marked elite status in other societies?
A really informative read! The discovery of the pregnant woman in a shell cap and its potential connection to the "Venus" of Willendorf figure is especially interesting. Thanks for the synopsis and including the bibliography, too!
I have always been interested in the Venus figurines, I remember hearing the "women carving themselves" interpretation years ago and it seemed to make sense.
It also brings to mind a couple things. One is that, in my observation, women going through pregnancy seem to develop totemic behaviors, i.e. must do certain actions, have certain items, etc. for no other reason than to reassure themselves. This extends to long and convoluted birth plans and such (thankfully, my wife did not go for that).
Second, it makes me think of Lilith bowls of the ancient Levant. Some similarities, but a lot of differences as well, still struck me as being related, maybe in function? Protection from evil spirits? I'm not sure. Very interesting though!
You need to think symbolically. I have a Naga carving from some sort of tree root. They were (are?) headhunters. The image is a crudely formed human head. The roots are hair and the trunk the face. There’s a carefully crafted metal ornament dangling from one ear. I have learned not to point this object in my direction. I’m not kidding.
Mimicking captures the particular spirit. That’s why puppets can appear so sinister. Because they mimic the dark side. Doppelgangers. Dancing, rituals, images, etc. imitate a supernatural power in order to make it manifest. In this case, the choice of stone as the medium might have some bearing. Also, producing the same type of image over and over for thousands of years suggests a kind of ritual or ceremony.
Imagine a rewrite of your article as fiction from the far future, replace the figurines with copies of playboy, and ask yourself what you think...
On the 'ages', the Golden Age/Silver Age/Bronze Age/Iron Age/Future Age model was ubiquitous millennia ago: the basis of Greek myth, used in the book of Daniel etc. The replacement of gold and silver with stone was just inverting the old scheme, replacing a belief in decay with a belief in progress.