Primitive Venus. "Paleolithic Venuses" Paleolithic venuses were depicted in the art of what century

VENUS: IN SEARCH OF THE ESSENCE

Every thing that has appeared in the world of people is immediately endowed with two attributes - a name and some, it happens, very far from the truth, designation of its essence. Paleolithic figurines of naked women were no exception to this rule.

As for the name, the word "Venus" stuck to the first figurine discovered. The Marquis de Vibret, who found this figurine in 1864 in Logerie Bass (dep. Dordogne, France), opposing his find to the Hellenistic "Venus the Chaste", called the bone figurine he discovered "Venus Shameless".

Discovery of the Marquis de Vibre
initiated a new trend historical science –
the study of Paleolithic female figurines
(Logerie Bass, France, dep. Dordogne, 13 thousand years BC,
mammoth tusk, 8.0 cm).

For the time being, until the time when the find was the only one, the word "venus" was the name of this particular figurine. However, from the beginning of the 20th century, when a number of similar finds were already at the disposal of researchers, all female Paleolithic figurines began to be called Venuses, and already without an unflattering epithet.

The name, reflecting the eye-catching eroticism of the female image, turned out to be very successful. It has taken root. Moreover, it was precisely in this way - sexually accentuated - that the researchers of that time imagined the prehistoric ideal of female beauty. Let's not forget that the beginning of the 20th century was the time of the rise of Freudianism.

Venuses, as you well know, reader, are called Paleolithic female figurines today. I think we will not object to such a name. It satisfies us quite well.

Giving the figurines a name was a relatively simple matter. It turned out to be much more difficult to look into the essence of the phenomenon, or, in other words, to understand why our distant ancestors made such peculiar images of women two decades ago. On this account, over a century and a half, a certain number of points of view, one way or another, differing from one another, have been formed. Let's combine them into several groups and take a critical look. But first, let's note character traits the statuettes themselves. And let's do it in the form of questions. Moreover, in the future, we will definitely have to answer questions regarding the appearance of Venuses. After all, for sure appearance venus is associated with their purpose, and finding out the purpose of the statuettes is our key task.

So, abstracting from episodic particulars, we review a very solid set of figurines discovered over a century and a half. Do you have questions, reader?

For example, I wonder why the figures are so small? Why do they not exceed the size of a palm? Don't you think that miniature figurines are easy to carry?

Why are the handles of Paleolithic venuses more like thin ropes, and the legs, devoid of feet, resemble some kind of stumps? Such figures cannot be installed in a vertical position. So they weren't meant to stand?

Why don't ancient figurines have faces? Maybe it didn't matter? Or maybe for some reason it was impossible to portray the face?

Finally, why do statuette makers display female attributes? Why are the breasts and buttocks hypertrophied? Why do some figurines have expressive genitals?

In Willendorf Venus exhaustively expressive
all four features of the ancient sculptural
images of a woman (Willendorf, Lower Austria,
23 thousand years BC, limestone with traces of ocher, 11.1 cm).

As you can see, dear reader, Venus has many interesting features. Keep them in mind when considering versions that try to explain the purpose of the statuettes (I will leave room for your thoughts in my critical review).

By the way, we have already met with one of the versions. As I noted, many researchers of the early 20th century saw in the Paleolithic Venuses the embodiment of the aesthetic ideal of the distant past, a kind of beauty standard of the Paleolithic era. Indeed, why shouldn't our prehistoric ancestors, weighed down by a still significant burden of the animal worldview, see beauty in an emphatically erotic nature? This point of view seems quite plausible.

But we must reject it. Why? I will name two reasons.

The first is that simply admiring, simply obtaining aesthetic satisfaction could not and did not exist at that time far from us. In deep primitiveness, the spiritual and the practical did not exist separately. They were closely intertwined, moreover, soldered to each other. Aesthetic feeling, art, ideal perception of the world, theoretical assessment of being are separated from the consumer, practical, gross materialistic only with the transition to a class society or, which is more familiar to the ear of an archaeologist, with the transition to the era of civilization.

Paleolithic figurines, due to their “location” in history, could not be objects of aesthetic satisfaction, could not be works of art designed to evoke aesthetic feelings. The use of venus had to be inscribed in the circle of the immediate needs of being. In a primitive - communist - society, female figurines were supposed to serve the implementation of some social function. By virtue of the nature of the collectivist system, they could in no case be tied by ownership to an individual person, they had to be in the public domain and, of course, be used in collective action. Finally, the venus had to be an object of a well-defined practical application. What? Such a question could not be raised by the adherents of the considered point of view. To stage it, it was necessary to go beyond the ordinary, ahistorical view of the past, it was necessary to understand that history, especially its period, which is essentially opposite to the current one, cannot be measured with its own - modern - meter. Unfortunately, the approach to history, in which aesthetics, art, or any other modern spiritual and ideological phenomena are automatically transferred to the past, is extremely tenacious and almost dominant.

The same group should include the views of our contemporaries, who see - a century later - in frank Paleolithic Venuses the same prehistoric "Playboy". Here, too, there is a transfer of the inactive erotic perception, which is quite natural today, into the distant past. I repeat, Venus could not but be inscribed in some practical activities people, in some ritual that has developed on objective grounds.

A good illustration of the approach that emphasizes the aesthetics of erotica is the repeatedly shown on TV BBC film "Sex before our era." You may remember these shots, reader.

On the screen, in the reflections of the fire, there is a profile of a hairy cave master who has just made another erotic toy. He carefully holds it in his hands. The primitive esthete looks at his product with delight and lust...

Nothing to say, juicy and quite naturalistic. Only here is the trouble, the historical truth in this episode is twice turned inside out. Along with primitive aesthetics, we cannot accept the personality, or rather, the gender of the master. This is the second reason why we should reject the view that female figurines embodied the aesthetic, erotic ideal of primitiveness.

The fact is that primitive men (namely, they are seen by all authors who write about Venus as manufacturers of figurines) in principle could not be producers of erotic products, as well as its consumers. AT primitive era erotica and sex were taken out of the genus, which at that time was everywhere the only form of human community (in the future we will come to grips with this side of the life of the primitive society and explain why sexual activity was excluded from the interaction of relatives). Consequently, erotic figurines could only be produced by women. But for whom? Not for my own use. After all, not female, but male eyes tend to “consume” female nudity. For whom, then, were the erotic figurines intended? There can be only one answer to this question: the figurines were intended for men of other tribal organizations.

Isn't such an assumption too bold? No, it seems quite appropriate and logical: the primitive genus was exogamous ( exogamy means external marriage ), men and women of the clan entered into sexual relations, respectively, with women and men of another clan organization ... But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's wait a while with the formation of our own hypothesis and return to the topic of the chapter.

I think that the first group of versions that try to explain the purpose of female Paleolithic figurines can hardly satisfy us. However, in saying so, I cannot but agree with the idea of ​​the sexual-erotic purpose of the figurines. It would be extremely unreasonable to deny the eroticism of Paleolithic products - just look at the expressive forms of female figurines. I reject only a primitive and ahistorical view of ancient erotica, and not the idea of ​​erotica (and sex) as such. We reserve it for further consideration. And now we will continue the review of points of view on the problem of interest to us.

In the second group, I will include versions according to which female figurines were a reflection of reality and were portraits of real women. No doubt, the source of any more or less plausible image can only be real world, real things and people. But why were female portraits made? Maybe for sensual contemplation? No, the time of portraiture and the attitude to the portrait known to us has not yet come. Just like admiration and aesthetic satisfaction, a reverent and impractical attitude to the image arises only during the transition to the era of civilization. The separation of the ideal from the practical requires a sufficiently high level of development. As in the consideration of the first group of versions, here we find the same disease - an assessment of the world that is essentially opposite to ours through modern paradigms.

Female figurines could not be portraits for another reason. Where have you seen, dear reader, portraits without a face? But with pronounced sexual attributes. The "portrait" versions, with their naive simplicity, involuntarily push us to think about the erotic purpose of "portraits" and their use by men.

Finally, the "portrait" versions do not answer the question: why were male images not replicated? Why were the hunters on whom the existence of the clan depended not honored to be immortalized in stone or ivory? Maybe because at that time men were relegated to the background? According to the popular point of view on matriarchy, the then society was characterized by such a sexual social inequality. But is it? I will express my view on matriarchy a little later.

Let's move on to the third group of versions. In this group, I propose to unite seemingly heterogeneous, but upon closer examination, they turn out to be related views. By the way, the versions of this group are the most common and, one might even say, legalized.

What are these versions? These are versions according to which Paleolithic venuses are images of ancestors, patronesses of the clan, keepers of the hearth, the embodiment of the cult of fertility, a symbol of unity and family ties, the personification of prosperity, sculptures of priestesses, a receptacle for collective spirits, and even statues of the mother goddess. Venus and venerable authors (from A. Beguin to A.P. Okladnikov, P.P. Efimenko, Z.A. Abramova, A.D. Stolyar, R.F. Its and many others) endow such qualities (often several at once) ), and - after them - young researchers, and history students [see, for example: Efimenko P.P. Primitive society. Essays on the history of the Paleolithic time. - Kyiv, 1953; Abramova Z.A. Images of a person in the Paleolithic art of Eurasia. - M.-L., 1966; her own: Animal and Man in the Paleolithic Art of Europe. - St. Petersburg, 2005; Stolyar A.D. Origin of fine arts. - M., 1985 (A.D. Stolyar even sees in venus some kind of abstract generalized idea, the result of "understanding the phenomena of social life" and believes that female figurines "were addressed to social thought much more than to the feelings of the individual")] . In the same vein, female Paleolithic figurines are perceived by non-professionals - readers of books and articles, where in one way or another the topic of interest to us is touched upon.

Maybe our assumption about the use of statuettes by men is wrong, and we should join the authoritative majority? No, let's not act so recklessly. First, let's think, look for flaws in the arguments of the representatives of the third group of versions. Scientific problems are solved not by the weight of the majority and the height of the syllable, but solely by the power of arguments and facts.

But before we take up the arguments, we must probably find what unites the ancestors, the patrons of the family, the keepers of the hearth and all the other figurants of the above list. "calculate" such common denominator is not difficult. They are the special role of women in primitive society and her (women) veneration.

And now - to the arguments. Adherents of the third group of versions see this special role and veneration of women as such. What are they derived from? Of course, from matriarchy, which is understood as a system in which a woman, being the central figure, towered over society, enjoyed special respect and even exercised power. However, such a matriarchy, to put it mildly, bears little resemblance to the system that existed throughout primitive stage human history. Rise above society or some of its members, praise of individuals, religious veneration, the development of abstract generalized ideas, comprehension of the phenomena of social life divorced from practice, and finally, power appears, at first still in an undeveloped, rudimentary form, only on the approaches to the class, political society. All this is a product of the division of labor and the division of society into various social groups.

In the monolith, which is the primitive society both economically and socially, there is not and cannot be a special role for anyone, be it a man or a woman, there is no reverence and all other attributes of the class structure. If anyone rules and is honored in a primitive society, then this is just a custom and tradition, but by no means a person. Both men and women perform their functions there, not in the least deforming or infringing on the functions of the opposite sex. In a primitive society, a person can stand out from the environment of relatives only as a conductor of some function, for example, as a beater on a hunt, a scout for sources of food and materials, or as a coordinator of actions in an unfamiliar environment. But such a distinction makes him no more than an agent, if you like, a servant of custom, without turning other people into his servants and admirers. One and the same person can be “dedicated” for different areas of activity. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, due to the specifics due to gender, it must be a man [see: Iskrin V.I. The dialectic of the sexes. - SPb., 2005]. Let him be called the leader. But this is not the leader of the Redskins of the period of military democracy from the novels Fenimore Cooper, is the leader of the primitive communist community. The primitive leader and the leader of pre-class and early class society are very different figures and different from one another. social phenomena. This is evidenced in some places by the surviving rudiments of the primitive social structure.

Thus, to appeal to matriarchy, into which the features of the political system are transferred, means to use poor-quality arguments. Whether this is done out of ignorance or with intent, we will not understand, reader.

What is matriarchy really? And did he even exist? Let us try to briefly answer these questions (in the future, the picture of the functioning of a non-political society will be supplemented).

The marriage of primitive society was group. Moreover, groups of men and women belonging to different tribal organizations entered into sexual relations. Their meetings were infrequent and short-lived. There was no question of any kind of acquaintance, courtship and other innovations of the period of civilization in such conditions. The result of such meetings, of course, were children. But people of ancient times did not yet know that the birth of children is associated with the well-known role of a man (however, even now ethnographers observe such a gap in knowledge among some peoples who are lagging behind in development). It is clear that the birth of children by women was not a secret. Children born to women remained in the family of mothers.

How could generations be compared under such conditions? On what line could kinship be counted? No need to explain that only maternal, feminine. This is precisely the essence of matriarchy (literally translated matriarchy means women power which is completely false and unscientific). Matriarchy, therefore, would be correctly called not a form of social organization, but, so to speak, a technical tool for counting kinship and drawing a line in the history of the clan. From such an order, from the method of counting generations, the special role and veneration of women in no way follows.

Against the idea of ​​exalting and honoring the primitive woman, I have one more argument in store. It turns out that the female figurines were not only carefully preserved, but, and this, however, concerns some of the discovered figurines, they were deliberately broken. Very authoritative archaeologists come to this conclusion. PER. Abramov, assuming in the splitting of figurines constituent part some rituals, notes that at the present level of knowledge we cannot yet say why this happened. Perhaps we, dear reader, will be able to solve this riddle. Let's take note of this fact. However, let's not digress from the topic.

Perhaps this fragment of a female figurine
is the result of a deliberate blow to it
(Kostenki, Russia, Voronezh region, 22.7 thousand years BC, marl, 13.5 cm).

Are reverence and destruction of what is revered compatible? I think no. But if the smashing is a fact, and the veneration is the fruit of an imagination torn off from historical reality, what must we discard in order to get out of this collision? Fact or illusion? Of course, the last one.

The "theory" of reverence and the special role of women does not bring us any closer to finding out the truth. The truth is not always on the side of the majority. The views of the representatives of the third group, like those of the first two, also sin by transferring modern realities into the depths of history, during the reign of an order that is fundamentally opposite to the current one. As you can see, the disease we are facing has the character of an epidemic.

In conclusion, I will mention one more group of views. Representatives of the fourth group believe that naturalistic figurines were used in antiquity to teach girls, to initiate the younger generation into women's mysteries. Earnestly? I don't think so. For the question immediately arises: is not a real, living woman the best nature? And one more thing: why were no male figurines made to train future women, as well as future men? By the way, boys are not mentioned at all as trainees by representatives of this group. But these are nitpicks that lie on the surface.

It is much more important to ask: did training exist in that distant era as special kind activities? I must disappoint the doctors of ancient pedagogy. In a society that does not know the social division of labor, education, as well as education, was woven into the functioning of the social organism, was literally poured into the process of production of things and people and formed a single whole with it. In that distant time, life itself was a school and a teacher, and visual aids were people, their interaction, social labor and the results of such labor. Human activity branches out only in the era of transition to a class society. And only in such a - divided, class - society does education appear as a special branch of activity, with a whole arsenal of special means, including visual aids. So, in the absence of it, Venus has nothing to do with the special education of girls (and boys).

Teaching the Rising Generation the "Sacraments"
sexual properties and related visual aids
appear only with the transition to a class society
(Nizhny Novgorod province, Russia, Russians, fabric, 17.0 and 16.0 cm,
reconstruction, izg. N.Larionova).

Such are the views that existed in the past and are currently in circulation regarding the purpose of the Paleolithic Venuses.

You are probably tired of parsing these fruitless versions, dear reader. What to do, we had to drink the cup to the bottom. Starting work, it is necessary to represent the state of the issue taken for research. We have covered almost all views on the purpose of the Paleolithic figurines. And what? Among the various points of view, we do not find a single one that could serve as an aid to our work. Maybe it's even for the best. We start positive work, not being bound by any attitudes, stereotypes, so-called authoritative opinions and the need to check every step with the venereal literature.

But this is not the only benefit we can derive from a critical part of our work. Thanks to the mistakes of our predecessors, we now clearly see what not to do and how to act in order not to miss.

I will present my methodological guidelines as a summary of the chapter.

1. Having considered an almost complete set of views on the purpose of the Paleolithic Venuses, we, with all the differences in the existing interpretations, found something in common that connects them and at the same time makes them completely untenable. This is an inability to approach the past historically, a misunderstanding of the dialectics of social development, an involuntary desire to transfer modern realities (ethics, art, the elevation of the individual over society, worship, religion, etc.) into a completely different, compared to ours, world of primitive man.

In no case should we approach history with today's standards.

2. In social science, a difference of opinion in the assessment of one event or phenomenon is not uncommon. This sad fate did not escape the question of the place of Venuses in primitive society. Where do the differences come from? If the problem under consideration does not affect anyone's interests, there are usually three sources of discrepancies - limited or flawed ideas about the socio-economic structure of the society under study, the inability or unwillingness to study the phenomenon chosen for analysis in the context of this structure, and the notorious "common sense", on verification turns out to be elementary subjectivism. All the troubles with finding out the purpose of Venus are connected with this trinity.

To solve the problem before us, we must have an adequate understanding of public relations and the way of life of the primitive society, proceed from these relations in your analysis, conduct an objective investigation, firmly adhering to the materialistic line.

And, I must say, in this chapter we have already done something in this direction. We drew attention to the fusion of the spiritual and practical in the worldview of primitive man, stated group marriage and exogamy of the genus, raised the question of a person in an egalitarian primitive society, and defined matriarchy as a tool for accounting for kinship.

In the future, the blanks made by us will be developed.

Finally, we began to develop the topic chosen for the study. Based on the essence of the primitive system, we have identified a number of functional characteristics of female Paleolithic figurines. This is, firstly, their involvement in the practice of being and the need to participate in any ritual, secondly, the focus of figurines on solving certain social problems, their belonging to the public domain and involvement in some kind of collective action, and thirdly , the obligation to make figurines by women of one clan for use by men of another clan organization.

3. If the object of study is not random and single and stands out with catchy features, then history needed it for something, and it is needed, most likely, for its intended purpose. Since Venuses are sexually expressive, we should take this clue and pay attention first of all to the order of interaction of the sexes in primitive society. Perhaps this step will lead us to the road leading to the solution of the problem we have set.

At the same time, we must consider the sphere of relations between the sexes in the closest connection with the whole complex of social relations.

4. In our critical examination of approaches to the Venusian problem, we managed with a minimum of arguments. It seems that this minimum was quite enough to recognize the current decisions as frivolous. All of these arguments were of a logical nature. Only once, and then in passing, did I refer to ethnographic data.

History is not something that has completely disappeared into time. The past leaves and remains, remains in the form of customs, traditions, remnants. The past lives in everyday life, customs and ideas of peoples.

We cannot fail to take advantage of the richest source of ethnographic knowledge (as well as knowledge of other sciences). And not only for the purpose of a better study of the phenomena of the distant past. Who knows, maybe the trace of the Venuses stretched through the millennia and in our days.

>> Paleolithic Venus

Paleolithic Venus

For a comprehensive idea of ​​Venus, they are usually mentally transferred to the times of antiquity and see the blooming femininity of Venus de Milo, the goddess of love and beauty that captivates the male imagination, the sea celestial Sandro Botticelli emerging from the foam of the sea. And what if you send the imagination to thirty or thirty-five thousand years ago? Upper Paleolithic - Early stone Age- gave humanity the image of the most ancient Venus, the true goddess, the miracle and purpose of which is the continuation of life.

Venuses of the Paleolithic or Paleolithic Venuses is a general term for prehistoric figurines, reliefs and figurines of women, the image of which is based on many common features. There is no traditional modern eroticism in the ancient figurines, but there is admiration and admiration for the woman-mother, the woman-goddess, the woman-beginning of life. Paleolithic Venuses are always obese, most often pregnant women, with sagging breasts, the milk of which a lot of children are fed, with huge hips that ensure easy childbirth. All organs of the female body that are responsible for the process of childbirth are given special attention, the rest is hair, smile, eyes, long legs- did not interest the prehistoric artist at all.

Figurines are distributed throughout Eurasia, from Baikal to the Pyrenees. The material of the figurines is bone, mammoth tusks, soft stone that can be processed with primitive tools of the first sculptors: limestone, calcite, steatite. By the way, the first ceramic figurine in the history of mankind is the Paleolithic Venus found in the Czech Republic. At the moment, archaeologists have a hundred figurines of Venus with a height of 4 to 25 centimeters, the most famous of which are:

Venus from Hole Fels, 35-40 thousand years old, Germany, mammoth tusk;

Vestonica Venus, 27-31 thousand years old, Czech Republic, ceramics;

Venus of Willendorf, 24-26 thousand years old, Austria, limestone;

Venus from Lespug, 23 thousand years old, France, ivory;

Venus Maltinskaya, 23 thousand years old, Russia, mammoth tusk;

Venus Brassempuiska, 22 thousand years old, France, ivory;

Venus Kostenkovskaya, 21 thousand years old, Russia, limestone;

Venus Losselskaya, 20 thousand years old, France, limestone.

The figurines mostly belong to the archaeological Gravettes culture, there are also both earlier examples of the Aurignacian culture (35 thousand years ago, Venus from Hole Fels), and later figurines of the Madeleine culture period.

Many scientists have attempted to create a classification of finds. In the scientific world, the classification of Henry Delport, which is based on the geographical principle, is considered the least controversial:

Pyrenean-Aquitanian group (Venus of Lespug, Lossel and Brassempuy);

Mediterranean group (Venus from the island of Malta);

Rhine-Danubian group (Venus of Willendorf and Venus of Vestonice);

Central Russian group (Kostenki, Zaraysk, Gagarino);

Siberian group (Venus Malta, Venus from Buret).

There are two, perhaps the most mysterious of the Paleolithic Venuses, that is, figurines whose creation by human hand has not been proven. Most researchers argue that both figures acquired anthropomorphic features in a natural way. It's all about the age of the finds, if the classic Venuses of the Stone Age are a maximum of 40 thousand years old, then the Venus from Tan-Tan is from 300 to 500 thousand years old, and the Venus from Berekhat-Rama

230 thousand years. The material of the disputed figurines is quartzite and tuff, soft rocks, largely subject to erosion.

The first Venus was discovered in France in 1864. The Marquis de Virbe presented his find to the public, christening it "Venus dissolute" (Venus impudique). The statuette of the Marquis de Virbe dates back to the Magdalenian archaeological culture. This is a small rough female figurine without a head, arms and legs, the master paid attention only to female sexual characteristics: a clear incision at the site of the vaginal opening and a large breast. In 1894, and again in France, on the territory of a cave dwelling of people of the Stone Age, Edouard Piette discovered the first of the famous Paleolithic anthropomorphic female figures - Venus of Brassempuiska. The Venus of Willendorf lay for 26,000 years on the banks of the Danube until it was recovered from the loess deposits in 1908. At the moment, the Venus from Hole Fels is the last significant find, plus it is also the oldest figurine found, the very first example of figurative art.

Why do scientists call prehistoric figurines "Venuses"? If in scientific circles there are disagreements in the dating, purpose and method of processing the material when creating figurines, then there is a unanimous opinion regarding symbolism: a female statuette of the early Stone Age is the embodiment of the ideal of beauty of that time, therefore, the generalized name was given in honor of the goddess of beauty. Attempts to interpret the meaning and possible use of ancient figurines are based on assumptions, on personal guesses of archaeologists, on certain ideas of scientists about the universe, but there is no most basic one for any proof - there are no facts. The case is common for almost all artifacts of prehistoric times, and the indisputable truth is that the true cultural meaning of objects will forever remain a mystery and will never go beyond someone's conjectures, assumptions or stereotypes. The following versions about the purpose of the Paleolithic Venus are considered the most plausible: a symbol of fertility, both female and agricultural; the image of the Mother Goddess or any other female deity; protective female talisman; pornographic image. There are only a few such figurines found in burials. The only thing that can be stated with certainty is that the figurines could not be of practical use and were not a tool for earning a livelihood. Common find sites are open settlements or caves.

The unifying factor for Stone Age Venuses is artistic characteristics. The most common type is a diamond-shaped figure with a wide middle part - these are the hips, buttocks and stomach, and narrowed upper and lower parts - the head and legs. The figurines most often lack legs and arms. The head is small, without details.

Classical, recognized by all Venuses belong to two cultures of the Upper Paleolithic: Gravettian and Solutrean - these are the most obese figures, by the time of the Madeleine culture, the figurines become more graceful, acquire a face, body details acquire clear lines, and artistic skill increases markedly. The use of ocher in the creation of figurines is known - these are the Venus of Willendorf and the Venus of Lossel. Definitely, the ocher coating carries sacred symbolism (blood during menstruation or at birth), there is a connection with some kind of religious ritual action.

Among the hundreds of female figures of the Upper Paleolithic, each of which deservedly claims to be unique, there is still the most unique one - Venus Vestonica, she forced the scientific world to radically reconsider the ideas about the life of an ancient person. The "goddess of the Stone Age" was found in the Czech Republic on July 13, 1925, on the site of an ancient hearth, by archaeologists Emmanuel Dania and Josef Seidl. The expedition members did not immediately understand what kind of treasure they were holding in their hands and what their small find would mean for history. At first glance, it was already a well-known female image: magnificent breasts, wide hips and a round belly. Only when all the "time deposits" were carefully cleaned off, it became clear that modest Czech historians became famous in an instant, the goddess Venus showed her kindness and once again surprised humanity with a gift. Venus Vestonica is the oldest ceramic figurine interspersed with organic material. Indisputable proof that approximately 26-29 thousand years ago people knew how to burn clay, until 1925 even the most daring minds could not imagine such a thing. In 2004, a tomographic study of the figurine was carried out, and again a sensation - it turns out that the figurine has a fingerprint of a ten-year-old child left before firing. Venus from Upper Vestonice belongs to the Gravettian archaeological culture.

An object 11 centimeters long, in some way turning archaeological science upside down. Currently, Venus Vestonica is exhibited in the museum of the Czech city of Brno.

Or limestone). There are also figurines molded from clay and fired, which is one of the ancient examples famous science of ceramics. In general, to beginning of XXI century, more than a hundred "Venuses" were known, most of which are relatively small in size - from 4 to 25 cm in height.

Discovery history

The first statuettes of the Upper Paleolithic era depicting women were discovered around 1864 by the Marquis de Vibraye in Logerie Bass (Dordogne department) in southwestern France. Vibre called his find “Venus impudique” (Venus impudique), thus contrasting it with the “Venus modest” (Venus Pudica) of the Hellenistic pattern, one example of which is the famous “Venus Medicean”. The statuette from Laugèrie-Basse belongs to the Madeleine culture. She is missing her head, arms, and legs, but has a clear incision made to represent the vaginal opening. Another discovered and recognized instance of such figurines was the Venus of Brassempuiska, found by Édouard Piette in 1894 in a cave dwelling on the territory of the town of the same name in France. Initially, the term "Venus" was not applied to her. Four years later, Salomon Reinach published a description of a whole group of steatite figurines from the Balzi Rossi caves. The famous Venus of Willendorf was found during excavations in 1908 in loess deposits in the Danube River Valley, Austria. Since then, hundreds of similar figurines have been discovered in the territory from the Pyrenees to Siberia. Scientists of the early 20th century, studying primitive societies, considered them the embodiment of the prehistoric ideal of beauty and, therefore, gave them a common name in honor of the Roman goddess of beauty Venus.

In September 2008, archaeologists from the University of Tübingen discovered a 6 cm figurine of a woman made from mammoth tusk - "Venus from Hole Fels", dating from at least 35 thousand BC. e. It is currently the oldest example of sculptures of this kind and figurative art in general (the origin of the much more ancient figurine of Venus from Tan-Tan is controversial, although it is estimated at 300-500 thousand years). The carved figurine was found in 6 fragments in the Hole-Fels cave, Germany, and represents a typical Paleolithic "Venus" with a pronouncedly large belly, widely spaced hips and large breasts.

Description

Most of the statuettes of the "Paleolithic Venuses" have common artistic characteristics. The most common are diamond-shaped figures, narrowed at the top (head) and bottom (legs), and wide in the middle (belly and hips). Some of them noticeably emphasize certain anatomical features. human body: abdomen, thighs, buttocks, breasts, vulva. Other parts of the body, on the other hand, are often neglected or absent, especially the arms and legs. The heads are also usually relatively small and lack detail.

In this regard, disputes have arisen regarding the legitimacy of using the term steatopygia, in relation to the "Paleolithic Venus". This question was first raised by Édouard Piette, who discovered the "Venus of Brassempui" and some other specimens in the Pyrenees. Some researchers consider these characteristics as real physiological traits, similar to those observed in representatives of the Khoisan peoples of South Africa. Other researchers dispute this view and explain them as a symbol of fertility and abundance. It should be noted that not all Paleolithic Venuses are obese and have exaggerated feminine features. Also, not all figurines are devoid of facial features. Nevertheless, the appearance of statuettes, similar to each other in style and in certain proportions, allows us to talk about the formation of a single artistic canon: the chest and hips fit into a circle, and the entire image into a rhombus.

Write a review on the article "Paleolithic Venus"

Notes

Links

An excerpt characterizing Paleolithic Venus

Kutuzov, whom he caught up with back in Poland, received him very affectionately, promised him not to forget him, distinguished him from other adjutants, took him with him to Vienna and gave him more serious assignments. From Vienna, Kutuzov wrote to his old comrade, the father of Prince Andrei:
“Your son,” he wrote, “gives hope to be an officer who excels in his studies, firmness and diligence. I consider myself lucky to have such a subordinate at hand.”
At Kutuzov's headquarters, among his comrades, and in the army in general, Prince Andrei, as well as in St. Petersburg society, had two completely opposite reputations.
Some, a minority, recognized Prince Andrei as something special from themselves and from all other people, expected from him great success listened to him, admired him and imitated him; and with these people, Prince Andrei was simple and pleasant. Others, the majority, did not like Prince Andrei, they considered him an inflated, cold and unpleasant person. But with these people, Prince Andrei knew how to position himself in such a way that he was respected and even feared.
Coming out of Kutuzov's office into the waiting room, Prince Andrei with papers approached his comrade, adjutant on duty Kozlovsky, who was sitting by the window with a book.
- Well, what, prince? Kozlovsky asked.
- Ordered to draw up a note, why not let's go forward.
- And why?
Prince Andrew shrugged his shoulders.
- No word from Mac? Kozlovsky asked.
- Not.
- If it were true that he was defeated, then the news would come.
“Probably,” said Prince Andrei and went to the exit door; but at the same time to meet him, slamming the door, a tall, obviously newcomer, Austrian general in a frock coat, with a black scarf tied around his head and with the Order of Maria Theresa around his neck, quickly entered the waiting room. Prince Andrew stopped.
- General Anshef Kutuzov? - quickly said the visiting general with a sharp German accent, looking around on both sides and without stopping walking to the door of the office.
“The general is busy,” said Kozlovsky, hurriedly approaching the unknown general and blocking his way from the door. - How would you like to report?
The unknown general looked contemptuously down at the short Kozlovsky, as if surprised that he might not be known.
“The general chief is busy,” Kozlovsky repeated calmly.
The general's face frowned, his lips twitched and trembled. He took out a notebook, quickly drew something with a pencil, tore out a piece of paper, gave it away, went with quick steps to the window, threw his body on a chair and looked around at those in the room, as if asking: why are they looking at him? Then the general raised his head, stretched out his neck, as if intending to say something, but immediately, as if carelessly starting to hum to himself, made a strange sound, which was immediately stopped. The door of the office opened, and Kutuzov appeared on the threshold. The general with his head bandaged, as if running away from danger, bent over, with large, quick steps of thin legs, approached Kutuzov.
- Vous voyez le malheureux Mack, [You see the unfortunate Mack.] - he said in a broken voice.
The face of Kutuzov, who was standing in the doorway of the office, remained completely motionless for several moments. Then, like a wave, a wrinkle ran over his face, his forehead smoothed out; he bowed his head respectfully, closed his eyes, silently let Mack pass him, and closed the door behind him.
The rumor, already spread before, about the defeat of the Austrians and the surrender of the entire army at Ulm, turned out to be true. Half an hour later already different directions adjutants were sent out with orders proving that soon the Russian troops, still inactive, would have to meet with the enemy.
Prince Andrei was one of those rare officers on staff who considered his main interest in the general course of military affairs. Seeing Mack and hearing the details of his death, he realized that half of the campaign was lost, understood the whole difficulty of the position of the Russian troops and vividly imagined what awaited the army, and the role that he would have to play in it.
Involuntarily, he experienced an exciting joyful feeling at the thought of shaming arrogant Austria and that in a week, perhaps, he would have to see and take part in a clash between Russians and French, for the first time after Suvorov.
But he was afraid of the genius of Bonaparte, who could be stronger than all the courage of the Russian troops, and at the same time he could not allow shame for his hero.
Excited and irritated by these thoughts, Prince Andrei went to his room to write to his father, to whom he wrote every day. He met in the corridor with his roommate Nesvitsky and the joker Zherkov; they, as always, laughed at something.
Why are you so gloomy? Nesvitsky asked, noticing the pale face of Prince Andrei with sparkling eyes.
“There is nothing to have fun,” answered Bolkonsky.
While Prince Andrei met with Nesvitsky and Zherkov, on the other side of the corridor Strauch, an Austrian general who was at Kutuzov's headquarters to monitor the food of the Russian army, and a member of the Hofkriegsrat, who had arrived the day before, were walking towards them. There was enough space along the wide corridor for the generals to disperse freely with three officers; but Zherkov, pushing Nesvitsky away with his hand, said in a breathless voice:
- They're coming! ... they're coming! ... step aside, the road! please way!
The generals passed with an air of desire to get rid of troubling honors. On the face of the joker Zherkov suddenly expressed a stupid smile of joy, which he seemed unable to contain.
“Your Excellency,” he said in German, moving forward and addressing the Austrian general. I have the honor to congratulate you.
He bowed his head and awkwardly, like children learning to dance, began to scrape one leg or the other.
The General, a member of the Hofkriegsrath, looked sternly at him; not noticing the seriousness of the stupid smile, he could not refuse a moment's attention. He squinted to show he was listening.
“I have the honor to congratulate you, General Mack has arrived, in perfect health, only a little hurt here,” he added, beaming with a smile and pointing to his head.
The general frowned, turned away, and walked on.
Gott, wie naive! [My God, how simple he is!] – he said angrily, moving away a few steps.
Nesvitsky embraced Prince Andrei with laughter, but Bolkonsky, turning even paler, with an evil expression on his face, pushed him away and turned to Zherkov. That nervous irritation into which the sight of Mack, the news of his defeat, and the thought of what awaited the Russian army had brought him, found its outlet in bitterness at Zherkov's inappropriate joke.
“If you, dear sir,” he spoke piercingly with a slight trembling of his lower jaw, “want to be a jester, then I cannot prevent you from doing so; but I announce to you that if you dare another time to make a fuss in my presence, then I will teach you how to behave.
Nesvitsky and Zherkov were so surprised by this trick that they silently, with their eyes wide open, looked at Bolkonsky.
“Well, I only congratulated you,” said Zherkov.
- I'm not joking with you, if you please be silent! - Bolkonsky shouted and, taking Nesvitsky by the hand, he walked away from Zherkov, who could not find what to answer.
“Well, what are you, brother,” Nesvitsky said reassuringly.
- Like what? - Prince Andrei spoke, stopping from excitement. - Yes, you understand that we, or officers who serve their tsar and fatherland and rejoice at the common success and grieve about the common failure, or we are lackeys who do not care about the master's business. Quarante milles hommes massacres et l "ario mee de nos allies detruite, et vous trouvez la le mot pour rire," he said, as if reinforcing his opinion with this French phrase. - C "est bien pour un garcon de rien, comme cet individu , dont vous avez fait un ami, mais pas pour vous, pas pour vous. [Forty thousand people died and our allied army was destroyed, and you can joke about it. This is forgivable to an insignificant boy, like this gentleman whom you have made your friend, but not to you, not to you.] Boys can only be so amused, - said Prince Andrei in Russian, pronouncing this word with a French accent, noticing that Zherkov could still hear it.
He waited for the cornet to answer. But the cornet turned and walked out of the corridor.

The Pavlograd Hussar Regiment was stationed two miles from Braunau. The squadron, in which Nikolai Rostov served as a cadet, was located in the German village of Salzenek. The squadron commander, captain Denisov, known to the entire cavalry division under the name of Vaska Denisov, was assigned best apartment in the village. Junker Rostov had been living with the squadron commander ever since he caught up with the regiment in Poland.
October 11, the very day when main apartment everything was raised to its feet by the news of Mack's defeat; at the squadron headquarters, camp life calmly went on as before. Denisov, who had been losing all night at cards, had not yet returned home when Rostov, early in the morning, on horseback, returned from foraging. Rostov, in a cadet uniform, rode up to the porch, pushed the horse, threw off his leg with a flexible, young gesture, stood on the stirrup, as if not wanting to part with the horse, finally jumped down and called out to the messenger.
“Ah, Bondarenko, dear friend,” he said to the hussar, who rushed headlong to his horse. “Let me out, my friend,” he said with that brotherly, cheerful tenderness with which good young people treat everyone when they are happy.
“I’m listening, your excellency,” answered the Little Russian, shaking his head merrily.
- Look, take it out well!
Another hussar also rushed to the horse, but Bondarenko had already thrown over the reins of the snaffle. It was evident that the junker gave well for vodka, and that it was profitable to serve him. Rostov stroked the horse's neck, then its rump, and stopped on the porch.
“Great! Such will be the horse! he said to himself, and, smiling and holding his saber, he ran up to the porch, rattling his spurs. The German owner, in a sweatshirt and cap, with a pitchfork, with which he cleaned the manure, looked out of the barn. The German's face suddenly brightened as soon as he saw Rostov. He smiled cheerfully and winked: “Schon, gut Morgen! Schon, gut Morgen!" [Wonderful, good morning!] he repeated, apparently finding pleasure in greeting the young man.
– Schonfleissig! [Already at work!] - said Rostov, still with the same joyful, brotherly smile that did not leave his animated face. – Hoch Oestreicher! Hoch Russen! Kaiser Alexander hoch! [Hooray Austrians! Hooray Russians! Emperor Alexander hurray!] - he turned to the German, repeating the words often spoken by the German host.
The German laughed, went completely out of the barn door, pulled
cap and, waving it over his head, shouted:
– Und die ganze Welt hoch! [And the whole world cheers!]
Rostov himself, just like a German, waved his cap over his head and, laughing, shouted: “Und Vivat die ganze Welt!” Although there was no reason for special joy either for the German who was cleaning out his barn, or for Rostov, who went with a platoon for hay, both these people looked at each other with happy delight and brotherly love, shook their heads in sign mutual love and smiling they parted - the German to the barn, and Rostov to the hut that he occupied with Denisov.
- What's the sir? he asked Lavrushka, the rogue lackey Denisov known to the whole regiment.

April 25, 2016, 09:23

Women's beauty has always been the subject of controversy and discussion. We compare the standards of past years or centuries with modern ideals, scold or admire the standards, look for flaws and note the merits. Yes, the female body is an acute, controversial topic, almost like politics or religion. I usually do not enter into such discussions, because, as practice shows, they do not end in the best way. in the best way or, in a good version, just nothing) and this text (by the way, the first experience on a gossip) is no exception.

This is a peaceful post about the ancients known to the world images of women. It is very unusual to look at figurines created several tens (in some cases hundreds) of millennia ago.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, in different regions of the world, archaeologists found figurines depicting a female body. They were dubbed the primitive Venuses. Dating fluctuates between 230 - 20 thousand BC. However, the main discoveries belong to the era of the Upper Paleolithic (35-10 thousand BC).

Let me remind you that the Stone Age (that is, the age when people used stone tools) is conditionally divided into three large periods: the Paleolithic (2 million-10 thousand years BC), the Mesolithic (10-6 thousand BC), Neolithic (6-2 thousand BC). The Paleolithic is divided into early (2.5 million years BC - 200 thousand years BC), middle (200-35 thousand years BC) and upper (35-10 thousand years BC) ).

The most studied is the Upper Paleolithic and most of the finds, including Venus, belong to this period. It was in the Upper Paleolithic that the last ice age ended, and Homo erectus was reclassified as Homo sapiens sapiens.

The more interesting are the first two Venuses found on the Dutch Heights (Berehat-Ram) and in Morocco (Tan-Tan). Scientists date them to about 230 millennium BC. This is the era of the Middle Paleolithic, therefore the creator of the figurines is Homo Erectus, thus both Venuses are the oldest examples of primitive art. However, until now, scientists have not come to a common conclusion - whether to consider these stones as figurines. There is no evidence that the shape and notches are the work of man. Perhaps this appearance is just the irony of the forces of nature. However, the opposite has not been proven either. Notches are made on the stones, which means that a person had a hand in them. Here, you can judge for yourself.

Venus from Berehat Rama (Dutch Heights) is an anthropomorphic stone from rock tuff, 35 mm long.

Venus from Tan-Tan, Morocco (58 mm)

However, traditionally Paleolithic Venus is called the young ladies of the Upper Paleolithic era, in the man-made origin of which there is no doubt, just as there is no double interpretation of the depicted. Everything is clear.)

These beauties, enjoy)

Willendorf Venus (28 -25 years ago BC). Austria, 11 cm. Made of oolitic limestone, which is not found in the area, which indicates the movement of peoples.

This is probably the most famous Venus. Her image is replicated more than Milosskaya. In my opinion, this is the most appetizing Venus. All like a donut. The hairstyle is very well conveyed, the author obviously worked on it for a long time. But the face and hands are completely undeveloped. This feature is common to almost all Venus. Apparently, the figurines were used as amulets for cult activities.

Most likely, this is the personification of fertility and fertility (the ability to bear children). Accordingly, the primitive sculptor, first of all, singled out and accentuated those places that are associated with these qualities: the chest and vulva. But the author's face, arms and legs in this respect were of little interest. Although, as we will see, attention to detail was not at all alien to primitive art. Sometimes such accents on trifles appear in the most unexpected way (as I already said, the curls in the hair of the Willendorf Venus - each ring is cut out).

Venus from Hole Fels (Venus of Swabia, Venus of Schelklingen), Germany. 35-40 thousand years ago. Mammoth tusk, 6 cm

Except for the first two Venuses "for people", which indeed there are serious doubts, then this Venus is the oldest known work of art and the progenitor of all other Venuses. It is interesting that a hole was made in place of her head, it is assumed that the figurine was used as a pendant. So it is also the oldest known jewelry. Considering that the figurine was carved from mammoth tusk, in an era when the tools were made of stone, one can imagine how long and painstaking work it was (it is also interesting that the author decided to decorate it with carvings - one of the examples of unexpected attention to detail).

By the way, this Venus has the most beautiful breasts (the dancing Venus also has a good shape - you will see below) - unlike the others - it provocatively sticks up!

Venus of Galgenberg, Austria, 30 t y d o Oe, 7 cm, serpentite (mineral)

Here is an attempt to depict movement. Most likely ritual dance. This Venus is called dancing, she is the owner of the most elegant figure. And here the author tried to convey the movement. By the way, despite the roughness of the work, there is a touching charm in this figurine)

Venus from Lossel, France, 20000 BC Bas-relief on limestone painted with red ocher

This Venus is interesting in that she has a turium horn in her hand (which was used as a container for drinking). That is, a household genre, one might say.

Venus Vestonica. Moravia, Czech Republic, 29-25 BC Ceramics, 11 cm

Venus of Brassempuiska, France, 22,000 BC Ivory.

This Venus is called the "lady with the hood". She is the first of the discovered Venuses (found in 1892). Ironically, this is the only Venus with a face, however, devoid of everything else. Again, the carving of the hood, given the level of tools used by the sculptures, is impressive.

Venus of Lespug, France (26~24 years BC), 15 cm, ivory

Here is another example of how a primitive author can emphasize completely, it would seem, minor things. There is an assumption that this Venus is dressed in a skirt of twisted threads.

Venus Savinyanskaya, Italy, 28-20 thousand years BC Serpentine. 22 cm - one of the largest

Venus Moravanskaya, Slovakia, 22-23 thousand years BC Mammoth tusk 7.6 cm

And finally - our domestic Venus. Ten figurines were found in the village of Kostenki, Voronezh region. They were created according to a similar canon - hypertrophied body sizes, small arms, legs and head. Maybe it's related to the cult. ancient goddess fertility and childbearing, which it was in the Upper Paleolithic that man began the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture and cattle breeding, and the favor of the goddess became especially important)

Thank you all, do not judge strictly!)

• • The subject and basic concepts of the history of religion
  • Universality of Faith
  • Why do people believe in God
    • Why does a person believe in God - page 2
    • Why do people believe in God - page 3
• Early and Middle Paleolithic
  • Paleoanthropology as a subject of the history of religions
  • Modern "savage" and prehistoric man
  • What can we say about the religion of ancient man?
    • What can we say about the religion of ancient man? - page 2
  • Religious representations of the Middle Paleolithic. Mousterian burials
    • Religious representations of the Middle Paleolithic. Mousterian burials - page 2
  • Bear cult in the Middle Paleolithic
  • Ethical views of the Neanderthal
• Religion of the Upper Paleolithic
  • Religion of the Upper Paleolithic
  • Burials of the Upper Paleolithic
  • Souls of the Dead
  • The Religious Meaning of Upper Paleolithic Painting
  • The idea of ​​God in the Upper Paleolithic
    • The idea of ​​God in the Upper Paleolithic - page 2
  • "Great Sorcerer"
  • "Paleolithic Venuses"
  • Ethical views of the Upper Paleolithic
• Religious representations of the Neolithic
  • The "Neolithic Revolution" Theory
  • Mysticism of grain and the beginning of agriculture
  • Veneration of ancestors and the beginning of a settled life
  • Mother - cheese earth
  • "Unknown God" of the Neolithic
  • Sanctuary and temple
    • Sanctuary and temple - page 2
  • « world of the dead"and" the world of the living "
    • "World of the Dead" and "World of the Living" - page 2
  • human sacrifice
• Megalithic religion
  • Culture of "big stones"
  • Who and when created the megalithic civilization
  • Why were buildings built from "big stones"
  • "You Must Be Born Again"
  • "Owl-Eyed Goddess"
  • heavenly father
    • Heavenly Father - page 2
  • End of Megalithic Religion
• Religions of modern non-literate peoples: god and spirits; riddles of non-literate cultures
  • The riddle of non-literate cultures
  • Ideas about the god-creator among non-literate peoples
    • Ideas about the god-creator among non-literate peoples - page 2
    • Ideas about the god-creator among non-literate peoples - page 3
  • Mother Earth
  • spirit world
    • Spirit world - page 2
  • Totem
  • World Tree and Supernatural Transition
• Religions of modern non-literate peoples: man and his world
  • Multi-Part Man
  • Is man a god or a beast?
  • Mirror instead of otherness
    • Mirror instead of otherness - page 2
    • Mirror instead of otherness - page 3
  • The moral imperative in the religions of non-literate peoples
    • The moral imperative in the religions of non-literate peoples - page 2
  • Cannibalism and human sacrifice
    • Cannibalism and human sacrifice - page 2
    • Cannibalism and human sacrifice - page 3
    • Cannibalism and human sacrifice - page 4
  • "Unwritten peoples" - the causes of social stagnation
• shamanism
  • The origin and meaning of the concept of shamanism
  • Who is a shaman
  • Who and how becomes a shaman
  • Shaman initiation
  • The inner meaning of shamanic initiation
    • The inner meaning of shamanic initiation - page 2
  • Mystery of Tudinism
  • What is swearing?
  • gathering spirits
  • Magic heat and shamanic flight
  • Healing
  • Saving a saved soul
  • Final feeding and dissolution of spirits
  • Shamanism as a cultural and religious phenomenon
    • Shamanism as a cultural and religious phenomenon - page 2

"Paleolithic Venuses"

Another range of Upper Paleolithic finds that have a meaning that goes beyond the limits of this ordinary this-worldly life are numerous figurines, reliefs and drawings of women. Of course, this plot was at first interpreted quite materialistically, as a manifestation of the erotic inclinations of an ancient man. But, it must be confessed, there is little eroticism in most of these images.

Figurines of Paleolithic "Venuses" related to for the most part to Aurignac and the Madeleine disappearing, show that the interest in women thirty thousand years ago was very different from the present. The face, arms and legs are very poorly worked out in these figures. Sometimes the whole head consists of one magnificent hairstyle, but everything that has to do with the birth and feeding of a child is not only carefully spelled out, but, as it seems, exaggerated. Huge ass, hips, pregnant belly, saggy breasts.

Paleolithic Venus is not a graceful creature that captivates the imagination modern man, and not the flourishing femininity of the Louvre Aphrodite, but a multiparous mother. These are the most famous "Venuses" from Willendorf (Austria), Menton (Italian Riviera), Lespyuju (France). Such is the remarkable relief from Lussel (France), on which a woman standing in front holds in her right hand, bent at the elbow, a massive horn, very reminiscent of cornucopias, but most likely this is a sign of the presence of the Bison God.

And it’s not that the Paleolithic artist simply couldn’t or didn’t want to depict feminine beauty. On several monuments we can see that he did it perfectly in principle - an ivory head (Brassempui), a relief in La Madeleine cave, discovered in 1952. But the figurines and images of "Venuses" by no means set out to glorify the perfection of female beauty.

The finds made in Ukraine by K. Polikarpovich clarify the meaning of the strange figurines. In the sanctuary on the Desna, in addition to the skulls and tusks of a mammoth, in addition to howler monkeys, he also found a female figurine made of ivory of the "Venus" type. It used to be attached to something and was part of the mortuary sanctuary.

Most likely, these "Venuses" were images of "Mother Earth", pregnant with the dead, who still have to be born again to eternal life. Perhaps the essence depicted in this way was the genus itself in its course from ancestors to descendants, the Great Mother, always producing life.

In Ukraine, in Gagarin, seven such figurines were located along the walls of the Madeleine dugout. They stood in special niches. It certainly was an object of worship. For the guardian of the clan, individual "personal" signs are not important. She is forever pregnant with life the womb, the mother who feeds her milk forever. It is unlikely that the thoughts of the ancients rose to high abstractions, but if they buried their dead in the ground, then they believed in their resurrection, and if they did, they could not help but worship the Mother-Raw-Earth, which gives food, life and rebirth.

The hopes of the Cro-Magnons were not limited to the earth, they aspired with their souls to the heavenly God-Beast, the all-powerful giver of life. But from the experience of everyday life, they knew perfectly well that the seed of life must find the soil in which alone it can germinate. The seed of life gave the sky, the soil - the earth. Worship of Mother Earth, so natural among agricultural peoples, actually turns out to be older than agriculture, since the goal of worship for ancient man was not the earthly harvest, but the life of the future age.

Mircea Eliade is very mistaken when he states in the introduction to Sacred and Worldly: thanks to the discovery of agriculture. It is equally obvious that the pre-agrarian society of vagrants-nomads was not able to feel the sacredness of Mother Earth with the same depth and with the same force.

Differences in experience are the result of economic, social and cultural differences, in a word - Stories" - "Obvious" is not yet true, the religious scholar should have known this better than others. The cults of the Mother Earth hunters of the Upper Paleolithic force us to assume that the religious is not always a product of the social and economic, but is sometimes their cause and premise.

For a better understanding of all the ambiguity of causes and effects in human culture, the figurines of “Venuses” from Dolnja Vestonice are especially interesting. Vestonice "Venuses" are made of clay and fired. These are almost the first samples of terracotta in the history of mankind (25,500 years ago). The ancient mystic must have tried to capture in the material itself the great idea of ​​the earth uniting with the heavenly fire to receive the heavenly seed. Maybe a lightning strike that melted the soil brought him to these images. At least twelve millennia separate these clay figurines of Mother Earth, specially fire-fired, from household ceramics that appeared in the early Neolithic.

Very characteristic and discovered in the late 1950s under the canopy of the rocky shelter of Angles-sur-l "Anglin (Angles-sur-l" Anglin, Vienne, France) is the scene of the Madeleine time. Three women, with clearly underlined signs of their gender, stand close to each other. One - with narrow girlish hips, the other - pregnant, the third - old, flabby. The first stands on the back of a bison, whose tail is raised and whose head is bowed, showing that it is depicted in the excitement of the rut.

Doesn't this relief reflect the rhythm of life and emphasize that for the Cro-Magnon this life was not an accident, but a divine gift, a seed of God, which must be properly disposed of in order to gain eternity? Or maybe this is the first of a long series of images of the Great Goddess in her three images - an innocent girl, a mother and an old woman-death, images - so characteristic of later humanity? Death, withdrawal from life in this case turns out not to be a complete disappearance, but only a stage of being, followed by a new conception by the divine seed, a new birth.