Ars Longa, Vita Brevis June 11, 2009
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Art and Music, Culture, Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Philosophy of Gender.Tags: Marija Gimbutas, Gerda Lerner, Mother Goddess religion, Hohle Fels, fertility figurine, symbolic thinking
trackback
Or: “Art is long, life is short.” In mid-May German archaeologists announced that they had found a piece of three-dimensional art, a little figurine carved out of mammoth ivory depicting a naked woman, in the Hohle Fels Cave, a region that has already yielded interesting human artifacts, including the oldest known musical instrument, a flute. The style resembles the famous Venus of Willendorf and other fertility figurines, but “Venus” is only ca. 24,000 years old, and the newfound little statuette is older than any other three-dimensional depiction of a human, going back ca. 40,000 years. Here are some dates to put this find into perspective: About 150,000-200,000 years ago Cro-Magnon humans traveled out of Africa to colonize the rest of the world. Cave art have been found dating back 75,000 years, and 40,000 years ago we humans were still sharing Europe and the Middle East with the last of the Neandertals.
Why is this so fascinating? Another headless, big-breasted figurine found in Europe—what is significant about that? Some commentators can’t get over those big breasts, and the exaggerated genitalia, and talk about “pornographic” images. Like many other conversations about art, those comment reveal more about the beholder than about the work of art. We have no idea what these little figurines were for. But we do have so many of them (albeit from a later time period) that we may be able to speculate: Certainly it might be that they were made by men, and for men, to add something tangible to their fantasies during lonely times—and what of it? I would assume that if there is anything that remains stable in the human condition, it is a natural preoccupation with sex. But in the archaeological community it hasn’t been the sexual aspect that has been accentuated, but the fertility symbolism: These figurines are not only “voluptuous,” they are apparently pregnant. For ancient cultures this may have been far more significant as a symbol of the fertility of the tribe, the herds, and nature itself, than being a sex-symbol (then again, one does not preclude the other. We’re just so used to the Victorian and post-Victorian mindset where sex is dirty…) .
Thanks to scholars such as Marija Gimbutas and Gerda Lerner who have studied ancient cultures centered around female fertility, we may see these little figurines as stylized images of creative power. According to Gimbutas and Lerner, the worship of female fertility is linked to what is probably the oldest religion in the world, the worship of the Mother Goddess. Archaeological evidence seem to indicate that there was indeed a time, dating back some 8,000 years and beyond, where the Goddess worship was widespread all over the ancient world, and (according to Lerner) this would imply that the Goddess’s human representatives, the priestesses, would have had a prominent presence in the social structure. Scholars don’t like to use the term matriarchy, because we have no evidence that women actually ruled in those ancient times, but there is enough evidence to suggest that women did play a more integrated role in society. So scholars prefer to talk about matrifocal or gynocentric values. Now, thanks to the new find of the little figurine, added to the other Venus figurines from a later date, we can perhaps move this tradition back an additional 30,000 years, and speculate that a matrifocal system may have been in effect among the Cro-Magnon humans, even as the hunters outwitted or outcompeted the Neandertals. As Lerner would say, patriarchy has only been around for some 3500 years—but for most of our time as humans, we have been matrifocal. (We will talk about all this in my Fall 2009 class, Phil 125, Philosophy of Women, by the way!) Just for the record, in my personal opinion patriarchy is not the source of all evil, as it has often been presented by radical feminism, but it is a thought-provoking idea that a tradition preceding patriarchy can perhaps be anchored that far back in time, thanks to this new piece of evidence.
But we need not take sides about patriarchy and Goddess worship to see an additional significance to the little figurine: As a work of art, which it indisputably is, it speaks to us from across 40,000 years about the human capacity for symbolic thinking: Our language, our gestures, our artifacts, and the very ways we think utilize images and expressions to signify other images and expressions. The little headless figurine is probably intended to symbolize something: maybe Woman as such, maybe Fertility, maybe Mom, or Sweetheart, maybe the Goddess who Gives and Takes Away—we don’t know. What we do know is that she has meant something—to he or she who carved her, and to the generations who kept her in their tribe. The little statuette has reached out, beyond the lifetime of the artist, to the future—which is what good art does. And that brings me back to the Latin proverb (translated from an even older Greek saying): Art is long, life is short. Life may be a lot longer for most of us than what the artist who carved the figurine could expect—some 30 years at the most. Still, each lifetime is not long enough to accomplish everything we’d like to accomplish, and experience and understand all there is to understand. But art ties generations together, and makes our short lives link up in a common experience transcending the individual lifespan. And thanks to the little figurine, Art just got a whole lot longer.
I do not think that this figurine is a representative of a “goddess”. I can’t help but look at my own religion and ask myself if I carry around figurines of my God. I don’t and I can’t imagine why anybody who carry around a figurine of a god. I do see how people wear necklaces of crosses and crescent moons and such but no actual figurine of a god. I believe that these figurines are exactly that… figurines! Dolls for little kids to play with. As Freud says, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!”
I agree with Richard above and believe that the figurine is not a Goddess but just a regular sculpture for that time period just like we have sculptures of women and men with clothes and with out clothes. The only difference, I believe, is that they weren’t ashamed of being naked back then rather they embarrassed it and saw it as art. As for the pregnant part of the women figurine i also believe that it is another way of expressing there idea of art and the beauty of creating life.
This figurine was obviously very important to someone. It has lasted this long for a reason. Once again we have a figurine that has no head, do you really think that people back then objectified womens bodies the way they do today? I find that really hard to believe. It makes a lot more sense to me that the reason she does not have a head is because she is sacred. She has life in her; they did not know what it took to become pregnant. What they did know was that people came out of vaginas and when people died they decomposed into the earth, hence MOTHER earth. (Again that whole idea of the maiden mother and the crone) I think that it is hard for people today to understand that, being that the patriarchal society we live in has no respect for its natural resources like women or the earth. We see these fertility goddesses very often with the same pattern, no head and pregnant. I don’t think that the people 30+thousand years ago had just a pregnancy fetish. Sometimes we have to step outside ourselves and realize that it is very likely that during that time people had an entirely different view of women than they do now.
those who are even passively familier with the bible ( or Heston films for that matter) will note that both the new and old testiments denounce idolatry repeatedly. This (And many other sorces) tells us that idolatry was a big deal in the ancient world, so why not in the cro-magnen?
Ancient Egyptians (some of the most famous idoliters) would throw out the brains of deceaced pharos; which to our modern opinions would be the holy of holies, in their embalming process, they did not know what it did. In the same vein, I’d assume the head of this goddess was not relivant to her station in their eyes, her important parts are emphasized for us.
A quick note about ivory, ever held it in your hand? Better yet, ever killed an animal with tusks using spears? Ivory’s level of difficulty to attain was higher than that of precious metal’s today. Of course this carving was holy- it probably took several weeks to create, if not longer, and out of a material that members of the tribe had died to attain.
I think if this indeed were a Goddess figurine, closer attention would be paid to the details. As we’ve seen in subsequent eras, females in power would have elaborate paintings done or memorials erected in their honor. To me, this might be just a doll. However, classroom discussion brought about an interesting observation: a small head with enlarged breasts and genitalia could mean the absence of a brain. I agree with this theory in that woman could have possibly been seen as outlets through which Gods were born, simply to produce offspring and that’s about it. Perhaps woman were thought to be too stupid to object to this type of treatment. And if that was indeed the case, this could be one of the first forms of propaganda. If little girls were to play with these dolls, this message could have been ingrained into their brains.
I think the figure may be a women and what she looks like when she is going to have a child. I don’t think it is a goddess. This may have been a way to tell how far a long the women is in her term of child birth. As well as a way for young girls to learn about their bodies. I just don’t see women being that importants in a mans world. Unless we can reproduce for a man then we can not be worth anything. Maybe men used this to make their wives upset. Well this maybe a goddess for the women to get them out of the life they live. I think these were just made for a source of money and teaching. But not a goddess.
After many classroom discussions and observations of these photographs, I have discovered that I like the idea that these could be for worship of goddesses. I really enjoyed reading about Lerner’s discoveries and how they relate to women in the ancient world. I believe that these figures were created to represent the goddess. I agree with one of the statements above, that women were not depicted as they are today in result of a partiarchal society. The continuous findings of the pregnant figure with little or no head must represent something sacred. It seems to me that people of ancient times worshiped the gods in which they believed held their resources. I dont see how these sculptures may be evidence of any different, especially that of mocking women.
Art is absolutely useful in discovering the past. Without art many of histories’ greatest stories would not have been told. Besides guessing what the true meaning of a work is what makes art so enjoyable. I have seen these types of figurines in a Art History class before and I agree it is an object of worship. The emphasized parts of the figurine clearly indicate that it symbolizes fertility. Although I am not an art historian these figurines seem to say something about the culture who created them. Exactly what they are saying is a question posed to the viewer.
This is a True Fertility Goddess.She is preganat,carved from metal..she is 2″ high,is painted in red to lrepresent blood..Due to age some is missing.At her base is very detailed female parts,very risque but beautiful carved art.She still has some old caked on dirt from where ever she was found,which is unknown.
http://tinypic.com/r/2rqhvkh/6