The real story of Russia Paleolithic Venus
English Wikipedia in support of the real history of Russia.
(with slight refinements)
Women's haplogroup survived from ancient times more than male. They have tens of thousands of years old. Descendants of men who lived with these women, to our time is left. It turns out that these pockets of housewives and keeper of many kinds of goals is the main guarantor of long-term continuation of the winning traditions of ethnic groups. This reality is reflected in part the different theories of matriarchy.
Already in the Paleolithic on the lands of Russia, as well as several other countries, has developed a cult mothers, partly later transformed into the image of Goddess Foremothers (such as Gaia). And then the Motherland. Strengthening the role of men in the civilization processes led to the formation of total religions, where gods are increasingly gravitate toward masculine.
Venus Paleolithic Russia often at extravagant concede some foreign Venus. But your article has. The very name - Venus - inevitably recalls the ancient polietnos Wends, of which in the early Middle Ages Slavs finally emerged.
The rich symbolism of the Paleolithic Venus requires a mandatory inclusion in the history of any country, including Russia.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ïàëåîëèòè÷åñêàÿ_Âåíåðà
Russian version of a lot of repeats English
Venus figurines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Russian Venus in the graphics do not)
Venus of Willendorf
Venus figurines is an umbrella term for a number of prehistoric statuettes of women portrayed with similar physical attributes from the Upper Palaeolithic, mostly found in Europe, but with finds as far east as Irkutsk Oblast, Siberia, extending their distribution to much of Eurasia, from the Pyrenees to Lake Baikal. Most of them date to the Gravettian period, but there are a number of early examples from the Aurignacian, including the Venus of Hohle Fels, discovered in 2008, carbon dated to at least 35,000 years ago, and late examples of the Magdalenian, such as the Venus of Monruz, aged about 11,000 years.
These 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 ceramics known. In total, over a hundred such figurines are known; virtually all of modest size, between 4 cm and 25 cm in height. They are some of the earliest works of prehistoric art.Contents [hide]
1 History of discovery
2 Description
3 Notable specimens
4 Classification
5 Interpretation
6 Gallery
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 Bibliography
11 External links
History of discovery
The Venus of Brassempouy
The first Upper Paleolithic representation of a woman was discovered about 1864 by the Marquis de Vibraye, at Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne), where initial archaeological surveys had already been undertaken; Vibraye named his find the V;nus impudique, a knowing contrast to the "modest" Venus Pudica Hellenistic type, the most famous of which is the Medici Venus. The Magdalenian "Venus" from Laugerie-Basse is headless, footless, armless but with a strongly incised vaginal opening.[1] Another example of such a figure being discovered and recognised was the Venus of Brassempouy, found by ;douard Piette in 1894 (but not originally labelled as a "Venus"). Four years later, Salomon Reinach published a group of steatite figurines from the caves of Balzi Rossi. The famous Venus of Willendorf was excavated in 1908 in a loess deposit in the Danube valley, Austria. Since then, hundreds of similar figurines have been discovered from the Pyrenees to the plains of Siberia. They are collectively described as "Venus" figurines in reference to the Roman goddess of beauty, Venus, since the prehistorians of the early 20th century assumed they represented an ancient ideal of beauty. Early discourse on "Venus" figurines was preoccupied with identifying the race being represented; and the steatopygous fascination of Sartje Baartman, the "Hottentot Venus" exhibited as a living ethnographic curiosity to connoisseurs in Paris early in the nineteenth century.[2]
In September 2008, archaeologists from the University of T;bingen discovered a 6 cm figurine woman carved from a mammoth’s tusk, the Venus of Hohle Fels, dated to at least 35,000 years ago, representing the earliest known sculpture of this type, and the earliest known work of figurative art altogether. The ivory carving, found in six fragments in Germany's Hohle Fels cave, represents the typical features of Venus figurines, including the swollen belly, wide-set thighs, and large breasts.[3][4]
Description
Venus of Dolni Vestonice
The majority of the Venus figurines appear to be depictions of females that follow certain artistic conventions, on the lines of schematisation and stylisation. Most of them are roughly lozenge-shaped, with two tapering terminals at top (head) and bottom (legs) and the widest point in the middle (hips/belly). In some examples, certain parts of the human anatomy are exaggerated: abdomen, hips, breasts, thighs, vulva. In contrast, other anatomical details are neglected or absent, especially arms and feet. The heads are often of relatively small size and devoid of detail. Some may represent pragnant women, while other show no such signs.[5]
The question of the steatopygia of some of the figurines has led to numerous controversies. The issue was first raised by ;douard Piette, excavator of the Brassempouy figure and of several other examples from the Pyrenees. Some authors saw this feature as the depiction of an actual physical property, resembling the Khoisan tribe of southern Africa, while others interpreted it as a symbol of fertility and abundance. Recently, similar figurines with protruding buttocks from the prehistoric J;mon period Japan were also interpreted as steatopygia of local women, possibly under nutritional stress.[6]
The Venus of Willendorf and the Venus of Laussel bear traces of having been externally covered in red ochre. The significance of this is not clear, but is normally assumed to be religious or ritual in nature—perhaps symbolic of the blood of menstruation or childbirth. Some buried human bodies bodies were similarly covered, and the colour may just represent life.[7]
All generally accepted Paleolithic female figurines are from the Upper Palaeolithic. Although they were originally mostly considered Aurignacian, the majority are now associated with the Gravettian and Solutrean. In these periods, the more rotund figurines are predominant. During the Magdalenian, the forms become finer with more detail; conventional stylization also develops.
Notable specimensname age (kya, approx.) location material
Venus of Hohle Fels 35–40 Swabian Alb, Germany mammoth ivory
Venus of Galgenberg 30 Lower Austria serpentine rock
Venus of Doln; V;stonice 27–31 Moravia, Czech Republic ceramic
Venus of Lespugue 24–26 French Pyrenees ivory
Venus of Willendorf 24–26 Lower Austria limestone
Venus of Mal'ta 23 Irkutsk Oblast, Russia ivory
Venus of Moravany 23 Z;horie, Slovakia mammoth ivory
Venus of Hradok 4 Nitriansky Hr;dok, Slovakia
Venus of Brassempouy 22 Aquitaine, France ivory
Venus of Laussel 20 Dordogne, France limestone relief
Venus of Monruz 11 Switzerland black jet
Classification
Venus of Malta (Archaeological Museum of Valletta) http://www.heritagemalta.org/featureditem/featured1.html
But it's not a Siberian Malta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/% D0% 9C% D0% B0% D0% BB% D1% 8C% D1% 82% D0% B0
A number of attempts to subdivide or classify the figurines have been made. One of the less controversial is that by Henri Delporte, simply based on geographic provenance.[8] He distinguishes:
the Venus figurines of the Pyrenees-Aquitaine group (Venus of Lespugue, of Laussel and of Brassempouy)
the Venus figurines of the Mediterranean group (Venus of Savignano, Malta and of Balzi Rossi)
the Venus figurines of the Rhine-Danube group (Venus of Willendorf and of Doln; V;stonice)
the Venus figurines of the Russian group (Kostienki and Zaraysk[9][10] in Russia and Gagarino in Ukraine)
the Venus figurines of the Siberian group (Mal'ta Venus, Bouret' Venus).
Venus figurines are also found elsewhere in the world, for example Japan[11], China[12].
According to Andr; Leroi-Gourhan, there are cultural connections between all these groups. He states that certain anatomical details suggest a shared Oriental origin, followed by a westward diffusion.[13]
The absence of such figurines from the Iberian peninsula is curious. Only few and rather dubious examples have been reported, especially at El Pendo and La Pileta. The so-called Venus of Las Caldas from a cave near Oviedo is a Magdalenian antler carving. Although some scholars see it as a stylised female body with an animal head, it is probably a decorated atlatl-type device.
[edit]
Interpretation
Venus of Laussel
There are many interpretations of the figurines, often based on little argument or fact. Like many prehistoric artifacts, the cultural meaning of these figures may never be known. Archaeologists speculate, however, that they may be emblems of security and success, fertility icons, pornographic imagery, or even direct representations of a Great Goddess or Mother Goddess or various local goddesses. The female figures, as part of Upper Palaeolithic portable art, appear to have no practical use in the context of subsistence. They are mostly discovered in settlement contexts, both in open-air sites and caves; burial contexts are much more rare.
At Gagarino in Russia, seven Venus figurines were found in a hut of 5 m diameter; they have been interpreted as apotropaic amulets, connected with the occupants of the dwelling. At Mal'ta, near Lake Baikal, figurines are only known from the left sides of huts. The figurines were probably not hidden or secret amulets, but rather were displayed to be seen by all (a factor that may explain their wide geographic spread). An image of excess weight may have symbolized a yearning for plenty and security.
Recently, two very ancient stone objects (between 200,000 and 300,000 years old) have been interpreted as attempts at representing females. One, the Venus of Berekhat Ram, was discovered on the Golan Heights; the other, the Venus of Tan-Tan, in Morocco. Both pieces remain controversial. In any case, both are at best very cursorily and summarily carved, if they were carved at all. Their shape may simply result from natural erosion, their anthropomorphic appearance being coincidental.
Some scholars and popular theorists suggest a direct continuity between the Palaeolithic female figurines and later examples of female depictions from the Neolithic or even the Bronze Age.[14] Such views have been contested on numerous grounds, not least the general absence of such depictions during the intervening Mesolithic.
[edit]
Gallery
Reconstruction of the Venus of Lespugue[15]
Another stylized figurine from Doln; V;stonice[16]
Venus of Moravany
Mal'ta Venus
Venus of Savignano[17]
Stylised Venus of Bouret
Venus Roumanie
Venus of Karanovo
[edit]
See also
Figurine
;atalh;y;k
Matriarchal religion
The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory
[edit]
Notes
^ Randall White, "The women of Brassempouy: A century of research and interpretation", Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13.4, December 2006:253 pdf file
^ Of the mammoth-ivory figurine fragment known as La Poire ("the pear") from her massive thighs, Randall White (White 2006:263, caption to fig. 6) observed the connection.
^ Conard, Nicholas J (14 May 2009). "A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany". Nature 459 (459): 248–252. doi:10.1038/nature07995. PMID 19444215. Retrieved 27 July 2010.
^ Cressey, Daniel (13 May 2009). "Ancient Venus rewrites history books". Nature. News. doi:10.1038/news.2009.473
^ Sandars, 29
^ Hudson MJ et al. (2008). "Possible steatopygia in prehistoric central Japan: evidence from clay figurines". Anthropological Science 116 (1): 87–92. doi:10.1537/ase.060317.
^ Sandars, 28
^ H. Delporte : L’image de la femme dans l’art pr;historique, ;d. Picard (1993) ISBN 2-7084-0440-7
^ Hizri Amirkhanov and Sergey Lev. New finds of art objects from the Upper Palaeolithic site of Zaraysk, Russia
^ www.membrana.ru - Âåíåðû êàìåííîãî âåêà íàéäåíû ïîä Çàðàéñêîì
^ Women's Prehistoric Jomon Pottery
^ ;;;;;;;; (Hongshan culture stone human figurines)
^ Leroi-Gourhan, A., Cronolog;a del arte paleol;tico, 1966, Actas de VI Congreso internacional de Ciencias prehist;ricas y protohist;ricas, Roma.
^ Walter Burkert, Homo Necans (1972) 1983:78, with extensive bibliography, including 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).
^ Sandars, plate 12
^ Sandars, plate 9
^ Sandars, plate 12
[edit]
References
Sandars, Nancy K., Prehistoric Art in Europe, Penguin (Pelican, now Yale, History of Art), 1968 (nb 1st edn.)
[edit]
Bibliography
C. Cohen : La femme des origines - images de la femme dans la pr;histoire occidentale, Belin - Herscher (2003) ISBN 2-7335-0336-7
H. Delporte, L'image de la femme dans l'art pr;historique, ;d. Picard, 1993 (ISBN 2-7084-0440-7)
This article incorporates information from this version of the equivalent article on the French Wikipedia.
[edit]
External links Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Venus figurines
Venus figurines and other portable Ice Age Art, with Dr Jill Cook, Curator of European Prehistory, British Museum
Christopher Witcombe, "Analysis of the Venus of Willendorf"
(Canadian Museum of Civilization) The Balzi Rossi Figurines
Venus figures from the Stone Age
Images of women in ancient art
Categories: Venus figurines | Archaeological artefact types | Prehistoric sculpture | Stone Age Europe | Upper Paleolithic | Prehistoric art | Women in history | Terracotta | Matriarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines