Paleolithic
Age

Why Faceless?

Facelessness, however, does not rule out portraiture. Realism turned out an essential element of the cave paintings. And some archaeologists believe that those cave paintings exerted magical control over the animals painted so that the hunters could kill them with ease.

Therefore, the same principle might as well apply to those figurines. If the Paleolithic artists had depicted the facial features of the image, this act might have brought some danger to the sitter. So they might have intentionally left the facial features blank to avoid the disaster.

In any case the Venus figurines unequivocally suggest that the Paleolithic woman of Central Europe boasted a chubby, well-developed body, and yet suffered from relaxed breast and abdominal muscles, perhaps as a result of frequent pregnancies.

So, those figurines were only portraiture.
And nothing else?

Authorities on prehistory, of course, attach more to these figures. There are two main theories, one of which is currently less favored. This school insists that those figurines represent motherhood, combining maternity and the role of protectress into one concept.

A Woman with reindeer from Laugerie Basse (Dordogne) in France The engraving on a shoulder blade shows a woman and a reindeer. Her pubic triangle is clearly emphasized, though one can not see it in this position.

Some of the figures undoubtedly represent pregnant women. However, one medical historian points out of a figure from Laugerie Basse in France that, while she “may indeed be expecting a happy event, she might have been suffering from an ovarian cyst”.

Viewed from a layman’s eye, she appears plainly pregnant. In any case, what matters is not what the artist was representing, but what he thought he was representing.

The main argument against the mother-protectress idea is that mother-and-child figures have never been found. Naturally, if you see a mother who holds a baby, you get the idea more clearly.

The other school suggests the early form of a formalized religion, and insists that the Venus becomes, if not a fully-fledged fertility goddess, at least a fertility cult figure.

Our ancestors at this period, however, seem to have had little enthusiasm for human fertility because too many children posed more of a problem than too few. And if the idea of fertility existed at all, the Paleolithic humans must have placed more importance on the avoidance of miscarriages and stillbirths—rather than on conception. They must have loathed infant mortality, and wanted to rear a child safely to adolescence.

If the Paleolithic man was interested in fertility at all, it was in the fertility of his food animals. A pregnant cow or a pregnant deer would have been a good deal more desirable than a pregnant woman.

A certain scholar wrote, “Nearly all the fertility cults found in the earliest period of recorded history are directly related not to human or animals, but to the soil, and the likelihood is that it was only when man became a farmer, some time after 9000 B.C. that he became obsessed by the subject—the human figure.”

However, others objected the above view, saying that the Mother Earth came into being after man had become a farmer. The female form came first—not the other way around.

Whether or not the Venuses had some magical importance, most of them can at least be taken to bear some resemblance, however distorted, to Paleolithic women.

Cave painting in Lascaux, France. A man or shaman right above is the part of the top painting.   Notice a phallic symbol on the matchstick figure.

But in the case of men, art has almost nothing to say.

There are a few matchstick men in hunting scenes, and a number of figures intentionally disguised in animal masks and skins as well as a costume used when stalking game. Those things might have been worn by early shamans, or medicine men, for ceremonial purposes.

But in all forms of Paleolithic art, man seems to have been represented predominantly by phallic symbols as shown in the painting at right.

Assuming that the biological role of the father was not yet recognized (Big question mark !), these symbols reinforce the argument against seeing the Venuses as fertility figurines.

If the phallic symbols expressed anything at all, therefore, they could only express the idea of the male as male. Then, the Venus figurine can reasonably be seen as a matching representation of the female as female, and sexual partner.

Conclusion

So what are those venuses? A pessimistic man once stated, “We must admit that we know nothing, and will never know anything about those Venuses.”

Another said, “we know only that the range of Paleolithic female images, as well as the many forms of presentation and use, preclude any simple interpretations.”

Is our search of the Paleolithic truth so pessimistic? Can we get into the mind of the Paleolithic artist? As already mentioned, what matters is not what the artist was representing, but what he thought he was representing. Could we possibly step into the shoes (probably, bare feet) of the prehistoric man or woman?

The issue at hand cannot be readily resolved, and any interpretation must remain a theory only—for the time being, because they cannot be proven, particularly when we try to move into their minds.

At least, however, you can see that women were treated favorably—or even highly regarded—simply because the artists at the time created the figurines in the form of a woman, not a man. When you find many virgin Marys, you naturally think that the virgin Mary, not a virgin John, was highly respected at the time as an idol.

Look at the above picture. According to the today’s aesthetical sense of beauty, she might not appear as attractive as Miss Universe. However, she might have inspired those two men, young and older, with a touch of awe or even admiration.

On the contrary, if you move your mouse over the picture, you see a pathetic matchstick figure, even though he boasts a phallic symbol. Does this man inspire you with a touch of awe? Probably, this figure makes you laugh, I suppose.   However, the Paleolithic artist didn’t have any intention to make you laugh.

This man was depicted, as you see, in the Lascaux painting above. Far from a cartoon, the whole scene appears serious. But you can certainly see him not as a main attraction but an auxiliary attachment to the animal figure, which might have been the main concern of the artist.

And how many male figures have you seen in any Paleolithic art? Probably, a couple at most or none, right? You can find hundreds of animal figures, scores of female figures, but only a few male figures that attract your attention.

A Mother Goddess figure found in Catal Huyuk, Anatolia (5700 BC.)

So, we could probably say that some form of feminine worship prevailed at the time. If you turn your attention to the Neolithic art, you will certainly see as many female figures as in the Paleolithic. Indeed, those venuses were passed into the Mediterranean region such as Malta and Crete as the Goddess figure.

So, we might just as well take a look at the Neolithic venuses to get a better idea.

Neolithic Venuses

To PART 1