Venus figurine - Revision history

imported>Mschusky: Typo - “archeoastronony” to “archeoastronomy”

2025-12-22T02:13:13Z

Typo - “archeoastronony” to “archeoastronomy”

imported>Yerachmiel C: /* See also */ bbw

2025-06-29T22:38:49Z

imported>Arjayay: Reverted edit by 2409:40F3:109E:EBB6:21F9:FF0:8B3E:842A (talk) to last version by Johnbod

2025-06-17T12:46:59Z

Reverted edit by 2409:40F3:109E:EBB6:21F9:FF0:8B3E:842A (talk) to last version by Johnbod

← Previous revision	Revision as of 12:46, 17 June 2025
(No difference)

imported>Johnbod: that's not very long at all - I was told this by a leading curator & author on the subject

2025-05-27T23:09:40Z

that's not very long at all - I was told this by a leading curator & author on the subject

New page

{{Short description|Prehistoric statuettes depicting women}}
{{Use British English|date=November 2019}}
[[Image:Wien NHM Venus von Willendorf.jpg|thumb|[[Venus of Willendorf]]]]

A '''Venus figurine''' is any [[Upper Paleolithic|Upper Palaeolithic]] [[Figurine|statue]] portraying a woman, usually carved in [[Sculpture#Types|the round]].<ref name="Fagan, 740-741">Fagan, Brian M., Beck, Charlotte, "Venus Figurines", ''[[iarchive:oxfordcompaniont0000unse_m4i0/page/740/mode/2up|The Oxford Companion to Archaeology]]'', 1996, Oxford University Press, {{ISBN|9780195076189}} pp. 740–741</ref> Most have been unearthed in [[Europe]], but others have been found as far away as [[Siberia]] and distributed across much of [[Eurasia]].

Most date from the [[Gravettian]] period (26,000–21,000 years ago).<ref name="Fagan, 740-741"/> However, findings are not limited to this period; for example, the [[Venus of Hohle Fels]] dates back at least 35,000 years to the [[Aurignacian]] era, and the [[Venus of Monruz]] dates back about 11,000 years to the [[Magdalenian]]. Such figurines were carved from soft stone (such as [[steatite]], [[calcite]] or [[limestone]]), bone or ivory, or formed of [[clay]] and fired. The latter are among the oldest [[ceramic]]s known to historians. In total, over 200 such figurines are known;<ref>Holloway</ref> virtually all of modest size, between about {{Convert|3 and 40|cm|abbr=on}} in height.<ref name="Fagan, 740">Fagan, 740</ref> These figurines are recognised as some of the earliest works of [[prehistoric art]].

Most have wide hips and legs that taper to a point. Arms and feet are often absent, and the head is usually small and faceless. Various figurines exaggerate the abdomen, [[hip#Sexual dimorphism and cultural significance|hips]], [[breast#art history|breasts]], thighs, or [[vulva]], although many found examples do not reflect these typical characteristics. Depictions of hairstyles can be detailed, and clothing or tattoos may be indicated.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscience/19990621vvenus2.asp|title=Clothing of figurines may be record of Ice Age tribes' skills|website=old.post-gazette.com|access-date=2019-11-13|archive-date=2021-01-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210121053336/http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscience/19990621vvenus2.asp|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The original cultural meaning and purpose of these artefacts is not known. It has frequently been suggested that they may have served a ritual or symbolic function. There are widely varying and speculative interpretations of their use or meaning: they have been seen as religious figures,<ref>Beck, 207-208</ref> an expression of health and fertility, grandmother goddesses, or as self-depictions by female artists.<ref>William Haviland, Harald Prins, Dana Walrath, Bunny McBride, ''Anthropology: The Human Challenge'', 13th edition, 2010, Cengage Learning, {{ISBN|0495810843}}, 9780495810841,[https://books.google.com/books?id=Fm2RY5ZKmDIC&pg=PA220 google books]; Cook; Beck, 205-208</ref>

== History of discovery ==
[[Image:VenusHohlefels2.jpg|thumb|[[Venus of Hohle Fels]], the earliest known Venus figurine]]
The ''[[Vénus impudique]]'', which was the figurine that gave the whole category its name, was the first Palaeolithic sculptural representation of a woman to be discovered in modern times. It was found in 1864 by [[Paul Hurault, 8th Marquis de Vibraye]] at [[Laugerie-Basse]] in the [[Vézère]] valley. This valley is one of the many important [[Stone Age]] sites in and around the commune of [[Les Eyzies-de-Tayac-Sireuil]] in [[Dordogne]], southwestern [[France]]. The figurines were mostly discovered in settlement contexts, both in open-air sites and caves.<ref name="Fagan, 740-741" /> The [[Magdalenian]] Venus from [[Laugerie-Basse]] is headless, footless, armless, and displays a strongly emphasised [[vulva]].<ref>{{Cite journal
| last1 = White
| first1 = Randall
| title = The Women of Brassempouy: A Century of Research and Interpretation
| doi = 10.1007/s10816-006-9023-z
| journal = Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
| volume = 13
| issue = 4
| pages = 250–303
| date = December 2008
| s2cid = 161276973
| url = http://blogimages.bloggen.be/evodisku/attach/166144.pdf
| access-date = 2016-05-19
| archive-date = 2022-10-22
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20221022094527/http://blogimages.bloggen.be/evodisku/attach/166144.pdf
| url-status = live
}}</ref>

Four years later, [[Salomon Reinach]] published an article about a group of [[steatite|soapstone]] figurines from the caves of [[Balzi Rossi]]. The famous [[Venus of Willendorf]] was excavated in 1908 from a [[loess]] deposit in the [[Danube]] valley located in [[Austria]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2023}} Since then, hundreds of similar figurines have been discovered from the [[Pyrenees]] Mountains to the plains of [[Siberia]].<ref name=Mal'ta>Tedesco, Laura Anne. [https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/malt/hd_malt.htm "Mal'ta (ca. 20,000 B.C.)"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223031431/http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/malt/hd_malt.htm |date=2023-12-23 }}. ''The Met’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History''. [[Metropolitan Museum of Art]].</ref>

In September 2008, archaeologists from the [[University of Tübingen]] discovered a {{Convert|6|cm|abbr=on}} figurine carved from a [[mammoth]]'s tusk. This figurine was later called the [[Venus of Hohle Fels]] and can be dated to at least 35,000 years ago. It represents the earliest known sculpture of this type and the earliest known work of [[figurative art]].<ref name="Cressey2009">{{Cite journal |date=13 May 2009 |author=Cressey, Daniel |title=Ancient Venus rewrites history books |journal=Nature |series=News |doi=10.1038/news.2009.473 }}</ref>

== Name ==
[[File:Venus impudique (1907 drawing).jpg|thumb|left|upright|''[[Vénus impudique]]'', 1907 drawing]]
Upper Palaeolithic female figurines are collectively described as "Venus figurines" in reference to the [[Roman mythology|Roman]] goddess of beauty [[Venus (mythology)|Venus]]. The name was first used in the mid-nineteenth century by the [[Paul Hurault, 8th Marquis de Vibraye|Marquis de Vibraye]], who discovered an ivory figurine and named it ''[[Vénus impudique|La Vénus impudique]]'' or ''Venus Impudica'' ("immodest Venus").<ref name=":0">Beck, 202-203</ref> The Marquis then contrasted the ivory figurine to the [[Aphrodite Of Knidos]], a Greco-Roman sculpture depicting Venus covering her naked body with both her hands.<ref name=":0" /> In the early 20th century, the general belief among scholars was that the figurines represent an ancient ideal of beauty. Since their discovery, considerable diversity in opinion amongst [[Archaeology|archaeologists]] and in [[Paleoanthropology|palaeoanthropological]] literature has arisen as to the function and significance of the figures.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Dixson|first1=Alan F.|last2=Dixson|first2=Barnaby J.|date=2012-01-03|title=Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility or Attractiveness?|journal=Journal of Anthropology|volume=2011|pages=1–11|doi=10.1155/2011/569120|language=en|doi-access=free}}</ref> Most scholars that have differing opinions on the purpose of the figurines, such as anthropologist Randall White, also disapprove of the "Venus" name as a result.<ref name=":1" />

The use of the name is metaphorical as there is no link between the ancient figurines and the Roman goddess [[Venus (mythology)|Venus]]; although they have been interpreted as representations of a primordial female goddess. This perception is said to have derived from the fact that attention is directed to certain features common to most of the figurines, in particular emotionally charged primary and secondary sexual characteristics such as the breasts, stomachs and buttocks.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Soffer|first1=O.|last2=Adovasio|first2=J. M.|last3=Hyland|first3=D. C.|date=2000-08-01|title=The "Venus" Figurines: Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Status in the Upper Paleolithic|url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/317381|journal=Current Anthropology|volume=41|issue=4|pages=511–537|doi=10.1086/317381|s2cid=162026727|issn=0011-3204|url-access=subscription}}</ref> The term has been criticised for being a reflection of modern Western ideas rather than reflecting the beliefs of the sculptures' original owners, but the original names are unknown as well, so the term Venus has persisted.<ref>{{cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAZqOoOVaI| archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211117/ENAZqOoOVaI| archive-date=2021-11-17 | url-status=live|title=Nude Woman (Venus of Willendorf), c. 28,000-25,000 B.C.E.|date=27 May 2012|people=Dr. Beth Harris & Dr. Steven Zucker|language=en|publisher=Smarthistory, Art History at Khan Academy|time=0:21|access-date=1 June 2015|medium=youtube video}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

Like many prehistoric artefacts, the exact cultural meaning of these figures may never be known. Archaeologists speculate, however, that they may be symbolic of security and success, [[fertility]], or a [[mother goddess]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Soffer|first1=O.|last2=Adovasio|first2=J. M.|last3=Hyland|first3=D. C.|date=Summer 2000|title=The "Venus" Figurines: Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Status in the Upper Paleolithic|journal=Current Anthropology|language=en|volume=41|issue=4|pages=511–537|doi=10.1086/317381|s2cid=162026727|issn=0011-3204}}</ref> The female figures are a part of Upper Palaeolithic art, specifically the category of Palaeolithic art known as [[portable art]].

== Figure details ==
[[Image:Vestonicka venuse edit.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Venus of Dolní Věstonice]], the earliest discovered use of ceramics<ref>The body used is the local [[loess]], with only traces of clay; there is no trace of surface burnishing or applied pigment. {{cite journal|last1=Vandiver|first1=P. B.|last2=Soffer|first2=O.|last3=Klima|first3=B.|last4=Svoboda|first4=J.|year=1989|title=The Origins of Ceramic Technology at Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia|journal=Science|volume=246|issue=4933|pages=1002–1008|doi=10.1126/science.246.4933.1002|pmid=17806391|bibcode=1989Sci...246.1002V|s2cid=138977052}}</ref> (29,000 – 25,000 BCE)]]

The majority of Venus figurines are depictions of women, and follow artistic conventions of the times. Most of the figurines display the same body shape with the widest point at the abdomen and the female reproductive organs exaggerated. Oftentimes other details, such as the head and limbs, are neglected or absent which leads the figure to be abstracted to the point of simplicity. The heads are often of relatively small size and devoid of detail. Some may represent pregnant women, while others show no indication of pregnancy.<ref>Sandars, 29; Fagan, 740-741; Cook; Beck, 203-213, who analyses attempts to classify the figures.</ref>

The [[Venus of Willendorf]] and the [[Venus of Laussel]] (a [[rock relief]] rather than a figurine) bear traces of having been externally covered in [[red ochre]]. The significance of this is not clear, but is traditionally assumed to be religious or ritual in nature. Some human bodies from the [[Paleolithic|Palaeolithic]] era are found similarly covered, so it is assumed this colour had a significant meaning in their culture even though we do not know what.<ref>Sandars, 28</ref>

All generally accepted Palaeolithic female figurines are from the [[Upper Palaeolithic]]. Although they were originally mostly considered part of the [[Aurignacian]] culture, the majority are now associated with the [[Gravettian]] and [[Solutrean]] cultures.<ref name="Fagan, 740-741; Beck, 203">Fagan, 740-741; Beck, 203</ref> In these periods, the more rotund figurines are predominant. Within the [[Magdalenian]] cultures, the forms become finer with more detail and the styling of said figures started to become similar within areas of close contact.{{Citation needed|date=November 2019}}

==Interpretation==
Despite being thought as one of the most 'fertile sources of debate in all of archaeology', Venus figurines appear to be relatively understudied as a whole.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=White|first=Randall|date=2006-11-30|title=The Women of Brassempouy: A Century of Research and Interpretation|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-006-9023-z|journal=Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory|volume=13|issue=4|pages=250–303|doi=10.1007/s10816-006-9023-z|s2cid=161276973|issn=1072-5369|url-access=subscription}}</ref> A consequence of this is that they are subject to generalised stereotypes that minimize morphological variation and differing contexts.<ref name=":1" /> Nevertheless, there have been many differing interpretations of the figurines since their discovery.<ref name="Fagan, 740-741" />

McCoid and McDermott suggested that because of the way these figures are depicted, such as the large breasts and lack of feet and faces, these statues were made by women looking at their own bodies. They state that women during the period would not have had access to [[mirror]]s to maintain accurate proportions or depict the faces or heads of the figurines. The theory remains difficult to prove or disprove, and Michael S. Bisson suggested that alternatives, such as puddles, could have been used as mirrors.<ref>{{Cite journal|jstor = 2744349|last1 = McDermott|first1 = Leroy|title = Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines|journal = Current Anthropology|year = 1996|volume = 37|issue = 2|pages = 227–275|doi = 10.1086/204491|s2cid = 144914396}}</ref>

It has also been suggested{{By whom|date=December 2024}} that the size and shape of the figures makes them suitable for holding through [[childbirth]].

It has been suggested that they may be a sign of an earlier prevalence of [[steatopygia]], now associated principally to women of certain African or [[Andamanese]] ancestry.
However the Venuses do not qualify as steatopygian, since they exhibit an angle of approximately 120 degrees between the back and the buttocks, while steatopygia is diagnosed by modern medical standards at an angle of about 90 degrees only.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.softpedia.com/news/What-is-Steatopygia-51231.shtml|title=What is Steatopygia?|first=Stefan Anitei|last=Softpedia|website=news.softpedia.com/|date=4 April 2007|access-date=4 September 2016|archive-date=27 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327102627/https://news.softpedia.com/news/What-is-Steatopygia-51231.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref>

Another modern interpretation, providing an explanation for visible weight variety amongst the figurines, comes from Johnson et al.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Johnson|first=Richard J|date=1 December 2020|title=Upper Paleolithic Figurines Showing Women with Obesity may Represent Survival Symbols of Climatic Change|doi=10.1002/oby.23028|journal=Obesity a Research Journal|volume=29|issue=1|pages=11–15|pmid=33258218|pmc=7902358}}</ref> Here, they argue that differences in the statues can be said to relate to human adaption to climate change. This is because figurines that are seen to be obese or pregnant originate to the earlier art from 38,000 to 14,000 BP - a period where nutritional stress arose as a result of falling temperatures.<ref name=":2" /> Accordingly, they found a correlation between an increase in distance from glacial fronts and a decrease in obesity of the figurines. This was justified as survival and reproduction, in glacial, colder areas, required sufficient nutrition and, consequently, over-nourished woman may have been seen as the ideal of beauty in these areas.<ref name=":2" />

In "The Mythology of Venus Ancient Calendars and Archaeoastronony," Helen Benigni argues that the consistency in design of these featureless, large-breasted, often pregnant figures throughout a wide region and over a long period of time suggests they represent an archetype of a female [[Supreme Creator]].<ref>Benigni, Helen, ed. 2013. ''The Mythology of Venus: Ancient Calendars and Archaeoastronomy''. Lanham, Maryland : University Press of America.</ref> Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age inhabitants likely connected women as creators innately tied to the cycles of nature.<ref>Benigni, Helen, ed. 2013. ''The Mythology of Venus: Ancient Calendars and Archaeoastronomy''. Lanham, Maryland : University Press of America.</ref>{{Clarification needed|reason=The Venus figurines predate the Neolithic|date=October 2024}}

== Later female figurines and continuity ==
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header = Neolithic fertility figurines
| total_width = 400
| caption_align = center
| image1 = Female Statuette Halaf Culture 6000-5100 BCE.jpg
| caption1 = Fertility figurine of the [[Halaf culture]], [[Mesopotamia]], 6000-5100 BCE. [[Louvre]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Site officiel du musée du Louvre |url=http://cartelfr.louvre.fr/cartelfr/visite?srv=car_not&idNotice=9772 |website=cartelfr.louvre.fr |access-date=2019-04-24 |archive-date=2022-10-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221002112120/https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010119537 |url-status=live }}</ref>
| image2 = Statuette Mehrgarh.jpg
| caption2 = Fertility figurine from [[Mehrgarh]], [[Indus Valley]], {{circa|3000 BCE}}.<ref>{{cite web |title=Figure féminine - Les Musées Barbier-Mueller |url=http://www.musee-barbier-mueller.org/collections/antiquite/art-neolithique/article/figure-feminine-665?lang=fr |website=www.musee-barbier-mueller.org |access-date=2019-04-24 |archive-date=2019-04-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190421202522/http://www.musee-barbier-mueller.org/collections/antiquite/art-neolithique/article/figure-feminine-665%3Flang%3Dfr |url-status=live }}</ref>
| footer = All part of the Neolithic "Venus figurines" tradition, the abundant breasts and hips of these figurines suggest links to fertility and procreation.
| footer_align = center
}}
Some scholars suggest a direct continuity between Palaeolithic female figurines and later examples of female depictions from the [[Neolithic]] or [[Bronze Age]].<ref>Walter Burkert, ''Homo Necans'' (1972) 1983:78, with extensive bibliography, including [[Peter Ucko|P.J. Ucko]], who contested the identification with mother goddesses and argues for a plurality of meanings, in ''Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Material from the Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greece'' (1968).</ref>

A female figurine which has "no practical use and is portable" and has the common elements of a Venus figurine (a strong accent or exaggeration of female sex-linked traits, and the lack of complete lower limbs) may be considered to be a Venus figurine, even if archaeological evidence suggests it was produced after the main Palaeolithic period. Some figurines matching this definition originate from the Neolithic era and into the Bronze Age. The period and location in which a figurine was produced helps guide archaeologists to reach conclusions as to whether the art piece found can be defined as a Venus figurine or not. For example, ceramic figurines from the late ceramic Neolithic may be accepted as Venus figurines, while stone figurines from later periods are not. This is a matter of ongoing debate given the strong similarity between many figurines from the Palaeolithic, Neolithic and beyond. A reworked [[endocast]] of a [[brachiopod]] from around 6,000 BCE in Norway has been identified as a late Venus figurine.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Tidemann|first1=Grethe|title=Venus fra Svinesund|url=http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/2001/08/venus-fra-svinesund.html|website=Uniforum|publisher=[[University of Oslo]]|access-date=11 December 2014}}</ref>

This means that a given female figurine may or may not be classified as a Venus figure by any given archaeologist, regardless of its date, though most archaeologists disqualify figurines which date later than the Palaeolithic, even though their purpose could have been the same.{{Citation needed|date=November 2019}}

== Notable figurines ==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Name || Age (approx.) || Location of discovery ||Material||Year of discovery
|-
|[[Venus of Tan-Tan]] (disputed)||300,000–500,000 ||[[Tan-Tan]], [[Morocco]]
||[[Quartzite]]|| 1999
|-
|[[Venus of Berekhat Ram]] (disputed)||230,000–280,000 ||[[Lake Ram]], [[Golan Heights]]
||[[Scoria]]|| 1981
|-
|[[Venus of Hohle Fels]]||35,000–40,000 ||[[Swabian Alb]], [[Germany]]
||[[mammoth ivory]]||2008
|-
|[[Venus of Galgenberg]]||30,000 ||[[Lower Austria]]
||[[serpentine group|serpentine rock]]||1988
|-
|[[Venus of Dolní Věstonice]]||27,000–31,000||[[Moravia]], [[Czech Republic]]
||[[ceramic]]
|1925
|-
|[[Venus of Mauern]]||27,000||[[Mauern]], [[Germany]]
||[[limestone]]
|1948
|-
|[[Venus of Laussel]]||25,000 ||[[Southern France]]
||[[limestone]], but a relief
|1911
|-
|[[Venus of Lespugue]]||24,000–26,000||[[French Pyrenees]]
||[[ivory]]
|1922
|-
|[[Venus of Willendorf]]||24,000–26,000||[[Lower Austria]]
||[[limestone]]
|1908
|-
||[[Venus of Brassempouy]]||23,000–25,000||[[Brassempouy]], [[France]]
||ivory
|1892
|-
||[[Venus of Moravany]]||23,000||[[Moravany nad Váhom]], [[Slovakia]]
||mammoth ivory
|1930
|-
||[[Venus of Petřkovice]]||23,000||[[Silesia]], Czech Republic
||[[hematite]]
|1953
|-
||[[Venus figurines of Mal'ta]]||23,000 ||[[Irkutsk Oblast]], [[Russia]]
||ivory
|1928
|-
||[[Venuses of Buret']]||20,000–21,000||[[Irkutsk Oblast]], [[Russia]]
||ivory, serpentine rock
|1936 - 1940
|-
||[[Venus figurines of Kostenki]]||20,000–25,000||[[Kostyonki–Borshchyovo archaeological complex|Kostyonki–Borshchyovo]], Russia
||ivory
|1988
|-
||[[Venus of Savignano]]||20,000–25,000||[[Savignano sul Panaro]], [[Italy]]
||serpentine rock
|1925
|-
|[[Venus figurines of Gagarino]]||20,000–21,000 ||[[ Lipetsk Oblast]], [[Russia]]
||ivory
|1926
|-
||[[Venus figurines of Balzi Rossi]]||18,000–25,000||[[Ventimiglia]], Italy
||ivory, [[soapstone]], serpentine, [[chlorite]]
|1883 - 1895
|-
|[[Vénus impudique]]||16,000 ||[[Laugerie-Basse]], [[France]]
||[[ivory]]
|1864
|-
|[[Venus of Waldstetten]]||15,000 ||[[Waldstetten]], [[Germany]]
||[[Quartzite]]
|2015
|-
|[[Venus of Eliseevichi]]||15,000 ||[[Bryansk]], [[Russia]]
||[[ivory]]
|1930
|-
|[[Venus figurines of Zaraysk]]||14,000–20,000||[[Zaraysk]], [[Russia]]
||[[ivory]]
|2005
|-
|[[Venus figurines of Gönnersdorf]]||11,500–15,000||[[Neuwied]], Germany
||ivory, [[antler]], [[bone]]
|1968 - 1976
|-
|[[Venus figurines of Petersfels]]||11,500–15,000||[[Engen, Germany|Engen]], Germany
||[[Jet (lignite)|black jet]]
|1927- 1932,
1974 - 1976, 1978
|-
|[[Venus of Monruz]]||11,000||[[Neuchâtel]], [[Switzerland]]
||black jet
|1991
|}

==See also==
{{Portal|History|Visual arts}}
* [[Feminine beauty ideal]]
* [[Jōmon Venus]]
* [[List of Stone Age art]]
* [[Matriarchal religion]]
* ''[[When God Was a Woman]]''

==Notes==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==References==
* Beck, Margaret, in Ratman, Alison E. (ed.), ''Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record'', 2000, University of Pennsylvania Press, {{ISBN|0812217098}}, 9780812217094, [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZMvUlgYOqRcC&pg=PA202 google books]
* Cook, Jill, [http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/sculpture/jill_cook.php Venus figurines] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230518124747/https://bradshawfoundation.com/sculpture/jill_cook.php |date=2023-05-18 }}, Video with Dr Jill Cook, Curator of European Prehistory, British Museum
* Fagan, Brian M., Beck, Charlotte, "Venus Figurines", ''The Oxford Companion to Archaeology'', 1996, Oxford University Press, {{ISBN|0195076184}}, 9780195076189, [https://books.google.com/books?id=ystMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA740 google books]
* Sandars, Nancy K. (1968), ''Prehistoric Art in Europe''. Penguin: Pelican, now Yale, History of Art. (nb 1st ed.)

==Further reading==
* Abramova, Z. (1962). ''Paleolitičeskoe iskusstvo na territorii SSSR'', Moskva : Akad. Nauk SSSR, Inst. Archeologii
* Abramova, Z. (1995). ''L'Art paléolithique d'Europe orientale et de Sibérie''., Grenoble: Jérôme Millon.
* Cohen, C. (2003). ''La femme des origines - images de la femme dans la préhistoire occidentale'', Belin - Herscher. {{ISBN|2-7335-0336-7}}
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1038/nature07995|title=A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany|year=2009|last1=Conard|first1=Nicholas J.|journal=Nature|volume=459|issue=7244|pages=248–252|pmid=19444215|bibcode=2009Natur.459..248C|s2cid=205216692}}
* Cook, Jill. (2013). ''Ice Age Art: the Arrival of the Modern Mind''; London: British Museum Press. {{ISBN|978-0-7141-2333-2}}
* Delporte, Henri. (1993). ''L'image de la femme dans l'art préhistorique'', éd. Picard. ({{ISBN|2-7084-0440-7}})
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1155/2011/569120|doi-access=free|title=Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility or Attractiveness?|year=2011|last1=Dixson|first1=Alan F.|last2=Dixson|first2=Barnaby J.|journal=Journal of Anthropology|volume=2011|pages=1–11}}
* Gvozdover, M. (1995).: ''Art of the mammoth hunters: the finds from Avdeevo'', (Oxbow Monograph 49), Oxford: Oxbow.
* Power, C. (2004). "Women in prehistoric art". In G. Berghaus (ed.), ''New Perspectives in Prehistoric Art''. Westport, CT & London: Praeger, pp. 75–104.
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1086/320478|title=More on the "Venus" Figurines|year=2001|last1=Schlesier/|first1=Karl H.|last2=Soffer|first2=O.|last3=Adovasio|first3=J. M.|last4=Hyland|first4=and D. C.|journal=Current Anthropology|volume=42|issue=3|pages=410–412|s2cid=162218369}}
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1086/317381|title=The "Venus" Figurines|year=2000|last1=Soffer|first1=O.|last2=Adovasio|first2=J. M.|last3=Hyland|first3=D. C.|journal=Current Anthropology|volume=41|issue=4|pages=511–537|s2cid=162026727}}
* Rau, S., Naumann D., Barth M., Mühleis Y., Bleckmann C. (2009): ''Eiszeit: Kunst und Kultur'', Thorbecke. {{ISBN|978-3-7995-0833-9}}

==External links==
{{Commons category|Venus figurines}}
* [http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/venus.html Venus figures from the Stone Age - with excellent pictures of most of the figurines] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081203133239/http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/venus.html |date=2008-12-03 }}
* [https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/3202/fulltext.pdf Undergraduate thesis, University of Texas, PDF]
* [http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/ Christopher Witcombe, "Analysis of the Venus of Willendorf"]
* [http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/archeo/paleofig/pal03eng.shtml (Canadian Museum of Civilization) The Balzi Rossi Figurines]

{{Venus figurines}}
{{Prehistoric technology}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Venus Figurines}}
[[Category:Venus figurines| ]]
[[Category:Archaeological artefact types]]
[[Category:Prehistoric sculpture]]
[[Category:Stone Age Europe]]
[[Category:Upper Paleolithic]]
[[Category:Prehistoric art]]
[[Category:Women and sexuality]]
[[Category:Sexuality in arts]]
[[Category:Female beauty]]

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:13, 22 December 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	[[Image:Wien NHM Venus von Willendorf.jpg\|thumb\|[[Venus of Willendorf]]]]		[[Image:Wien NHM Venus von Willendorf.jpg\|thumb\|[[Venus of Willendorf]]]]

	A '''Venus figurine''' is any [[Upper Paleolithic\|Upper Palaeolithic]] [[Figurine\|statue]] portraying a woman, usually carved in [[Sculpture#Types\|the round]].<ref name="Fagan, 740-741">Fagan, Brian M., Beck, Charlotte, "Venus Figurines", ''[[iarchive:oxfordcompaniont0000unse_m4i0/page/740/mode/2up\|The Oxford Companion to Archaeology]]'', 1996, Oxford University Press, {{ISBN\|9780195076189}} pp. 740–741</ref> Most have been unearthed in [[Europe]], but others have been found as far away as [[Siberia]] and distributed across much of [[Eurasia]].		A '''Venus figurine''' is any [[Upper Paleolithic\|Upper Palaeolithic]] [[Figurine\|statue]] portraying a woman, usually carved in [[Sculpture#Types\|the round]].<ref name="Fagan, 740-741">Fagan, Brian M., Beck, Charlotte, "Venus Figurines", ''[[iarchive:oxfordcompaniont0000unse_m4i0/page/740/mode/2up\|The Oxford Companion to Archaeology]]'', 1996, Oxford University Press, {{ISBN\|9780195076189}} pp. 740–741</ref> Most have been unearthed in [[Europe]], but others have been found as far away as [[Siberia]] and distributed across much of [[Eurasia]]. The island of [[Sardinia]] located on the east side of Italy, had a different version, most famously called Venus of Macomer and other Mother Goddess figurines were found. These statuettes, which date from the Neolithic period, share stylistic and iconographic similarities with the Upper Paleolithic Venus figurines found elsewhere, though they are often identified as representations of a "[[Mother Goddess]]" linked to fertility and the afterlife.

	Most date from the [[Gravettian]] period (26,000–21,000 years ago).<ref name="Fagan, 740-741"/> However, findings are not limited to this period; for example, the [[Venus of Hohle Fels]] dates back at least 35,000 years to the [[Aurignacian]] era, and the [[Venus of Monruz]] dates back about 11,000 years to the [[Magdalenian]]. Such figurines were carved from soft stone (such as [[steatite]], [[calcite]] or [[limestone]]), bone or ivory, or formed of [[clay]] and fired. The latter are among the oldest [[ceramic]]s known to historians. In total, over 200 such figurines are known;<ref>Holloway</ref> virtually all of modest size, between about {{Convert\|3 and 40\|cm\|abbr=on}} in height.<ref name="Fagan, 740">Fagan, 740</ref> These figurines are recognised as some of the earliest works of [[prehistoric art]].		Most date from the [[Gravettian]] period (26,000–21,000 years ago).<ref name="Fagan, 740-741"/> However, findings are not limited to this period; for example, the [[Venus of Hohle Fels]] dates back at least 35,000 years to the [[Aurignacian]] era, and the [[Venus of Monruz]] dates back about 11,000 years to the [[Magdalenian]], and the [[Çatalhöyük\|Catalhoyuk]] figurine<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Archaeologists from Stanford find an 8,000-year-old ‘goddess figurine’ in central Turkey \|url=https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2016/09/archaeologists-find-8000-year-old-goddess-figurine-central-turkey \|access-date=2025-11-18 \|website=news.stanford.edu \|language=en}}</ref>, 8000 years old. Such figurines were carved from soft stone (such as [[steatite]], [[calcite]] or [[limestone]]), bone or ivory, or formed of [[clay]] and fired. The latter are among the oldest [[ceramic]]s known to historians. In total, over 200 such figurines are known;<ref>Holloway</ref> virtually all of modest size, between about {{Convert\|3 and 40\|cm\|abbr=on}} in height.<ref name="Fagan, 740">Fagan, 740</ref> These figurines are recognised as some of the earliest works of [[prehistoric art]].

	Most have wide hips and legs that taper to a point. Arms and feet are often absent, and the head is usually small and faceless. Various figurines exaggerate the abdomen, [[hip#Sexual dimorphism and cultural significance\|hips]], [[breast#art history\|breasts]], thighs, or [[vulva]], although many found examples do not reflect these typical characteristics. Depictions of hairstyles can be detailed, and clothing or tattoos may be indicated.<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscience/19990621vvenus2.asp\|title=Clothing of figurines may be record of Ice Age tribes' skills\|website=old.post-gazette.com\|access-date=2019-11-13\|archive-date=2021-01-21\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210121053336/http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscience/19990621vvenus2.asp\|url-status=dead}}</ref>		Most have wide hips and legs that taper to a point. Arms and feet are often absent, and the head is usually small and faceless. Various figurines exaggerate the abdomen, [[hip#Sexual dimorphism and cultural significance\|hips]], [[breast#art history\|breasts]], thighs, or [[vulva]], although many found examples do not reflect these typical characteristics. Depictions of hairstyles can be detailed, and clothing or tattoos may be indicated.<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscience/19990621vvenus2.asp\|title=Clothing of figurines may be record of Ice Age tribes' skills\|website=old.post-gazette.com\|access-date=2019-11-13\|archive-date=2021-01-21\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210121053336/http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscience/19990621vvenus2.asp\|url-status=dead}}</ref>
Line 36:		Line 36:

	== Name ==		== Name ==
	[[File:Venus impudique (1907 drawing).jpg\|thumb~~\|left~~\|upright\|''[[Vénus impudique]]'', 1907 drawing]]		[[File:Venus impudique (1907 drawing).jpg\|thumb\|upright\|''[[Vénus impudique]]'', 1907 drawing]]
	Upper Palaeolithic female figurines are collectively described as "Venus figurines" in reference to the [[Roman mythology\|Roman]] goddess of beauty [[Venus (mythology)\|Venus]]. The name was first used in the mid-nineteenth century by the [[Paul Hurault, 8th Marquis de Vibraye\|Marquis de Vibraye]], who discovered an ivory figurine and named it ''[[Vénus impudique\|La Vénus impudique]]'' or ''Venus Impudica'' ("immodest Venus").<ref name=":0">Beck, 202-203</ref> The Marquis then contrasted the ivory figurine to the [[Aphrodite Of Knidos]], a Greco-Roman sculpture depicting Venus covering her naked body with both her hands.<ref name=":0" /> In the early 20th century, the general belief among scholars was that the figurines represent an ancient ideal of beauty. Since their discovery, considerable diversity in opinion amongst [[Archaeology\|archaeologists]] and in [[Paleoanthropology\|palaeoanthropological]] literature has arisen as to the function and significance of the figures.<ref>{{Cite journal\|last1=Dixson\|first1=Alan F.\|last2=Dixson\|first2=Barnaby J.\|date=2012-01-03\|title=Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility or Attractiveness?\|journal=Journal of Anthropology\|volume=2011\|pages=1–11\|doi=10.1155/2011/569120\|language=en\|doi-access=free}}</ref> Most scholars that have differing opinions on the purpose of the figurines, such as anthropologist Randall White, also disapprove of the "Venus" name as a result.<ref name=":1" />		Upper Palaeolithic female figurines are collectively described as "Venus figurines" in reference to the [[Roman mythology\|Roman]] goddess of beauty [[Venus (mythology)\|Venus]]. The name was first used in the mid-nineteenth century by the [[Paul Hurault, 8th Marquis de Vibraye\|Marquis de Vibraye]], who discovered an ivory figurine and named it ''[[Vénus impudique\|La Vénus impudique]]'' or ''Venus Impudica'' ("immodest Venus").<ref name=":0">Beck, 202-203</ref> The Marquis then contrasted the ivory figurine to the [[Aphrodite Of Knidos]], a Greco-Roman sculpture depicting Venus covering her naked body with both her hands.<ref name=":0" /> In the early 20th century, the general belief among scholars was that the figurines represent an ancient ideal of beauty. Since their discovery, considerable diversity in opinion amongst [[Archaeology\|archaeologists]] and in [[Paleoanthropology\|palaeoanthropological]] literature has arisen as to the function and significance of the figures.<ref>{{Cite journal\|last1=Dixson\|first1=Alan F.\|last2=Dixson\|first2=Barnaby J.\|date=2012-01-03\|title=Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility or Attractiveness?\|journal=Journal of Anthropology\|volume=2011\|pages=1–11\|doi=10.1155/2011/569120\|language=en\|doi-access=free}}</ref> Most scholars that have differing opinions on the purpose of the figurines, such as anthropologist Randall White, also disapprove of the "Venus" name as a result.<ref name=":1" />

Line 62:		Line 62:
	However the Venuses do not qualify as steatopygian, since they exhibit an angle of approximately 120 degrees between the back and the buttocks, while steatopygia is diagnosed by modern medical standards at an angle of about 90 degrees only.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://news.softpedia.com/news/What-is-Steatopygia-51231.shtml\|title=What is Steatopygia?\|first=Stefan Anitei\|last=Softpedia\|website=news.softpedia.com/\|date=4 April 2007\|access-date=4 September 2016\|archive-date=27 March 2019\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327102627/https://news.softpedia.com/news/What-is-Steatopygia-51231.shtml\|url-status=live}}</ref>		However the Venuses do not qualify as steatopygian, since they exhibit an angle of approximately 120 degrees between the back and the buttocks, while steatopygia is diagnosed by modern medical standards at an angle of about 90 degrees only.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://news.softpedia.com/news/What-is-Steatopygia-51231.shtml\|title=What is Steatopygia?\|first=Stefan Anitei\|last=Softpedia\|website=news.softpedia.com/\|date=4 April 2007\|access-date=4 September 2016\|archive-date=27 March 2019\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327102627/https://news.softpedia.com/news/What-is-Steatopygia-51231.shtml\|url-status=live}}</ref>

	Another modern interpretation, providing an explanation for visible weight variety amongst the figurines, comes from Johnson et al.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal\|last=Johnson\|first=Richard J\|date=1 December 2020\|title=Upper Paleolithic Figurines Showing Women with Obesity may Represent Survival Symbols of Climatic Change\|doi=10.1002/oby.23028\|journal=Obesity a Research Journal\|volume=29\|issue=1\|pages=11–15\|pmid=33258218\|pmc=7902358}}</ref> Here, they argue that differences in the statues can be said to relate to human adaption to climate change. This is because figurines that are seen to be ~~obese~~ or pregnant originate to the earlier art from 38,000 to 14,000 BP - a period where nutritional stress arose as a result of falling temperatures.<ref name=":2" /> Accordingly, they found a correlation between an increase in distance from glacial fronts and a decrease in obesity of the figurines. This was justified as survival and reproduction, in glacial, colder areas, required sufficient nutrition and, consequently, over-nourished woman may have been seen as the ideal of beauty in these areas.<ref name=":2" />		Another modern interpretation, providing an explanation for visible weight variety amongst the figurines, comes from Johnson et al.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal\|last=Johnson\|first=Richard J\|date=1 December 2020\|title=Upper Paleolithic Figurines Showing Women with Obesity may Represent Survival Symbols of Climatic Change\|doi=10.1002/oby.23028\|journal=Obesity a Research Journal\|volume=29\|issue=1\|pages=11–15\|pmid=33258218\|pmc=7902358}}</ref> Here, they argue that differences in the statues can be said to relate to human adaption to climate change. This is because figurines that are seen to be heavier or pregnant originate to the earlier art from 38,000 to 14,000 BP - a period where nutritional stress arose as a result of falling temperatures.<ref name=":2" /> Accordingly, they found a correlation between an increase in distance from glacial fronts and a decrease in obesity of the figurines. This was justified as survival and reproduction, in glacial, colder areas, required sufficient nutrition and, consequently, over-nourished woman may have been seen as the ideal of beauty in these areas.<ref name=":2" />

	In "The Mythology of Venus Ancient Calendars and ~~Archaeoastronony~~," Helen Benigni argues that the consistency in design of these featureless, large-breasted, often pregnant figures throughout a wide region and over a long period of time suggests they represent an archetype of a female [[Supreme Creator]].<ref>Benigni, Helen, ed. 2013. ''The Mythology of Venus: Ancient Calendars and Archaeoastronomy''. Lanham, Maryland : University Press of America.</ref> Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age inhabitants likely connected women as creators innately tied to the cycles of nature.<ref>Benigni, Helen, ed. 2013. ''The Mythology of Venus: Ancient Calendars and Archaeoastronomy''. Lanham, Maryland : University Press of America.</ref>{{Clarification needed\|reason=The Venus figurines predate the Neolithic\|date=October 2024}}		In "The Mythology of Venus Ancient Calendars and Archaeoastronomy," Helen Benigni argues that the consistency in design of these featureless, large-breasted, often pregnant figures throughout a wide region and over a long period of time suggests they represent an archetype of a female [[Supreme Creator]].<ref>Benigni, Helen, ed. 2013. ''The Mythology of Venus: Ancient Calendars and Archaeoastronomy''. Lanham, Maryland : University Press of America.</ref> Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age inhabitants likely connected women as creators innately tied to the cycles of nature.<ref>Benigni, Helen, ed. 2013. ''The Mythology of Venus: Ancient Calendars and Archaeoastronomy''. Lanham, Maryland : University Press of America.</ref>{{Clarification needed\|reason=The Venus figurines predate the Neolithic\|date=October 2024}}

	== Later female figurines and continuity ==		== Later female figurines and continuity ==
Line 214:		Line 214:

	==Further reading==		==Further reading==
	* Abramova, Z. (1962). ''Paleolitičeskoe iskusstvo na territorii SSSR''~~, Moskva~~ : Akad. Nauk SSSR, Inst. Archeologii		* Abramova, Zoya (1962). ''Paleolitičeskoe iskusstvo na territorii SSSR''. Moscow: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Inst. Archeologii
	* Abramova, Z. (1995). ''L'Art paléolithique d'Europe orientale et de Sibérie''., Grenoble: Jérôme Millon.		* Abramova, Zoya (1995). ''L'Art paléolithique d'Europe orientale et de Sibérie''., Grenoble: Jérôme Millon.
	* Cohen, C. (2003). ''La femme des origines - images de la femme dans la préhistoire occidentale'', Belin - Herscher. {{ISBN\|2-7335-0336-7}}		* Cohen, Claudine (2003). ''La femme des origines - images de la femme dans la préhistoire occidentale''. Paris: Belin - Herscher. {{ISBN\|2-7335-0336-7}}
	* {{cite journal \|doi=10.1038/nature07995\|title=A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany\|year=2009\|last1=Conard\|first1=Nicholas J.\|journal=Nature\|volume=459\|issue=7244\|pages=248–252\|pmid=19444215\|bibcode=2009Natur.459..248C\|s2cid=205216692}}		* {{cite journal \|doi=10.1038/nature07995\|title=A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany\|year=2009\|last1=Conard\|first1=Nicholas J.\|journal=Nature\|volume=459\|issue=7244\|pages=248–252\|pmid=19444215\|bibcode=2009Natur.459..248C\|s2cid=205216692}}
	* Cook, Jill. (2013). ''Ice Age Art: the Arrival of the Modern Mind''; London: British Museum Press. {{ISBN\|978-0-7141-2333-2}}		* Cook, Jill. (2013). ''Ice Age Art: the Arrival of the Modern Mind''; London: British Museum Press. {{ISBN\|978-0-7141-2333-2}}
	* Delporte, Henri. (~~1993~~). ''L'image de la femme dans l'art préhistorique''~~, éd~~. Picard. ({{ISBN\|2-7084-0440-7}})		* Delporte, Henri. (1979). ''L'image de la femme dans l'art préhistorique''. Paris: Picard. ({{ISBN\|2-7084-0440-7}})
	* {{cite journal \|doi=10.1155/2011/569120\|doi-access=free\|title=Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility or Attractiveness?\|year=2011\|last1=Dixson\|first1=Alan F.\|last2=Dixson\|first2=Barnaby J.\|journal=Journal of Anthropology\|volume=2011\|pages=1–11}}		* {{cite journal \|doi=10.1155/2011/569120\|doi-access=free\|title=Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility or Attractiveness?\|year=2011\|last1=Dixson\|first1=Alan F.\|last2=Dixson\|first2=Barnaby J.\|journal=Journal of Anthropology\|volume=2011\|pages=1–11}}
	* Gvozdover, M. (1995).: ''Art of the mammoth hunters: the finds from Avdeevo'', (Oxbow Monograph 49), Oxford: Oxbow.		* Gvozdover, M. (1995).: ''Art of the mammoth hunters: the finds from Avdeevo'', (Oxbow Monograph 49), Oxford: Oxbow.
Line 231:		Line 231:
	* [http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/venus.html Venus figures from the Stone Age - with excellent pictures of most of the figurines] {{Webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081203133239/http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/venus.html \|date=2008-12-03 }}		* [http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/venus.html Venus figures from the Stone Age - with excellent pictures of most of the figurines] {{Webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081203133239/http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/venus.html \|date=2008-12-03 }}
	* [https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/3202/fulltext.pdf Undergraduate thesis, University of Texas, PDF]		* [https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/3202/fulltext.pdf Undergraduate thesis, University of Texas, PDF]
	* [http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/ Christopher Witcombe, "Analysis of the Venus of Willendorf"]		* [http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/ Christopher Witcombe, "Analysis of the Venus of Willendorf"] {{Webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040403230731/http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/ \|date=2004-04-03 }}
	* [http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/archeo/paleofig/pal03eng.shtml (Canadian Museum of Civilization) The Balzi Rossi Figurines]		* [http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/archeo/paleofig/pal03eng.shtml (Canadian Museum of Civilization) The Balzi Rossi Figurines]

Line 240:		Line 240:
	{{DEFAULTSORT:Venus Figurines}}		{{DEFAULTSORT:Venus Figurines}}
	[[Category:Venus figurines\| ]]		[[Category:Venus figurines\| ]]
	[[Category:~~Archaeological~~ artefact ~~types~~]]		[[Category:Types of archaeological artefact]]
	[[Category:Prehistoric sculpture]]		[[Category:Prehistoric sculpture]]
	[[Category:Stone Age Europe]]		[[Category:Stone Age Europe]]

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:38, 29 June 2025
Line 187:		Line 187:
	\|\|black jet		\|\|black jet
	\|1991		\|1991
			\|-
			\|[[Venus of Kołobrzeg]]
			\|6,000
			\|[[Obroty]], [[Poland]]
			\|limestone
			\|2022
	\|}		\|}

Line 196:		Line 202:
	* [[Matriarchal religion]]		* [[Matriarchal religion]]
	* ''[[When God Was a Woman]]''		* ''[[When God Was a Woman]]''
			* [[Big Beautiful Woman]]

	==Notes==		==Notes==