40,000 years ago people were doing what? Does it have artistic value? Religious value? Medicinal value? Value as humor? Value as a visual sex object? The questions are as much speculation as the answers!

My goodness, does the origin of this work this take THAT much speculation? Just go to any class of 10 year olds. Find which boy draws the best. Then ask what the other boys always ask him to draw for them! Case solved.

Art is to express an idea by an improper use of a language. So I think the figurines represent art creations.

It speaks to our cultural denial of the facts of women's biology that nobody has recognized in this figurine a pretty accurate representation of the physiology of a woman who's just given birth. Maybe it's just a clay doodle by someone - a midwife, a sister, a daughter, a spouse, a new mother herself - who was blown away by the transformation, as anyone paying attention might be.

It really looks more like a chicken trussed for baking!

I'm surprised Mr. Curry did not mention the religious implications of these figurines. That the figurines represent a reverence for fertility and thus worship of female deities is widespread enough to have made it into religion and anthropology textbooks. I'm not saying that this is what the figurines MUST represent, but that it is a theory about them that should be mentioned in a scholarly article about the figurines.

When I first saw this, I also saw a body of a fowl. Considering nearby a half lion half man was found there is a likely chance this is half woman half bird. I think that people from long ago had many reasons for their creations. This one may have been made out of humor.

Any controversy about time and history must be divided into two categories. One; where the time scale is incumbent upon the belief that our civilization is the only one in earth's long history, and two; where one realizes that there is a good reason to believe that there have been civilizations which advanced to a high level before any of our recorded history began.
Should you believe, as I do, that there have been civilizations, perhaps several, separated by cataclysms, then one must consider that there would be left-overs, perhaps from survivors, to be found.
It amuses me that scientists are adamant about the scientific method, until the preconceived notions about the time scale come into play. Historically, there has been a complete disregard of scientific thinking when an authority figure's ox is to be gored. Certainly, as the evidence of how plate tectonics work, and how completely obliterated evidence of civilization may be; it seems prudent to assume any and all possibilities of lost civilizations. It certainly helps to explain many of the mythical lore coming from all quarters of the globe.

Actually, the second i saw the photo, I knew they were of a bird. When my sons were small. I would take a whole roasting chicken from the market, wash it and sit it on the counter with it's legs hanging down. It as quite cute. In the Photo, I can see the folding of the skin, where it was gutted and cleaned out and the wings tucked up. The artist just emphasized them into breasts. Depending on how small it is, perhaps a finch or humming bird.

The original shape of the piece of Mammoth ivory possibly has something to do with the lack of feet and head, and the tapering size of the legs. The obesity of the chest and belly might have something to do with not scraping much tooth away from the original shape. Remember, a sculptor takes a block and just takes away everything that doesn't look like what is being carved. The hook on top looks like it was to be hung up over something/somebody.

While reading these comments, not one purposed that maybe these figurines represent a statement by the tribe or family grouping. They could be saying "Hey look at how we are great hunters and providers. Look at our women, look at how big and healty they are." While being sexual in nature they don't actually indicate that the female figure is pregnent but only very healthy and well fed.

When I first looked at it I saw a mother holding a shoulder. The baby's head is on the mother's right shoulder and the mother's head is on the child's right shoulder. Rather than a woman's genitalia, I see the child's legs and feet. Does anyone else see this? Are there other pictures that would show this figurine from better angles?

As a very amateur student of "cave art," I long ago came to the conclusion that it is pointless to argue about the function of these works. People living at that time, like hunter-gatherer peoples today, would have very different means of classifying what they perceived and, hence, what they made. The lines between art, religion, magic and even the recording of events (history) was a blurry one. In some ways, our "post-modern" society is returning to that blurring of distinctions. In the end, the thing was the thing itself and its meanings were/are fluid. As for the size of the objects, it seems obvious that these hunter-gatherers had to keep their possessions small because of the need to migrate with the animals they hunted. You couldn't build the Sphinx unless you were pretty sure you were going to stay put.

I, too, stood in the cave of Peche Merle in southwestern France. It was a pilgrimage for me because I teach art history. I "felt" that it was a place of worship- a place for faith. My response was emotional not rational. Our oldest artifacts must have been there to answer the same questions that we ask now. Why are we here? How can we control what appears to be uncontrollable? I don't think we will ever fully understand the specifics of these ancient religions but if we are receptive to the sensory clues we will percieve the artifacts as ancient answers. How will our relics and icons be "read" in 30,000 years?

As an addendum to the comments that I made earlier, it occurs to me that in a culture that had no idea what a partial spinal block might be, techniques of hypnotic pain reduction may have been more available and reasonable to the paleolithic mind. On further consideration, this may have been a far more effective, sophisticated, and non-invasive approach to mitigating the most painful of human experiences, childbirth. It would then make perfect sense to expect that the paleolithic midwife would include the "Venus" in her medicine kit of sedative and healing herbs, for its use as a hypnotic suggestive device to be held and focused upon by the pre-partum mother during delivery. Using chanting, massage, herbs, and hypnotic suggestion, the psychometric statuette could actually speak to the birthing mother.

There is another angle here that seems not to have been recognized. The small size of the "Venus" figures, indeed suggests that they were intended to be held in the hand. I have had the amazing experience of listening to a gifted medium recite detailed personal family information about the owner of a ring he held in his hand. He had no knowledge of the owner of the ring. It happened to be me. This was an exercise to demonstrate the mystery of PSYCHOMETRY, wherein imprints of accurate personal information are imprinted into the physical crystalline structure of metal and stone, only to be retrieved through one who has honed this skill.

Could it be that the tiny statuettes were actually used by birthing mothers to acquire the actual success in fertility of previous delivering mothers by grasping the carved "Venus" and psychometrically informing their bodies to deliver healthy, vigorous infants? This would make the figures psychic obstetrical tools, something that we might consider doing.

When I stood in the cave of Peche Merle in southwestern France face-to-face with Paleolithic art, I was overwhelmed by how alien the artists' word was from my own. I knew I had no key for understanding this art--its creation, function and meaning--because nothing in my world seemed to inform what I was seeing. I left the cave with a very deep sense of being disconnected from this art. I am an art historian by training, and this is the first and only time in my life that I have felt like this in front of a visual artifact. I think the most honest way to approach artifacts from the Stone Age is to be honest that we can never understand them with any certainty. We can propose hypotheses, but these tell us as much about ourselves and our view of humanity as they do about the Paleolithic people who created these objects.

In art history lectures the Venus statuettes are talismans for fertility held by hopeful mothers as they focused on the body functions of reproductions (breasts, genitalia and belly). The size of the talisman was also important as they were carried inside of the mother-to-be. Since this article didn't mention this is it an abandoned possibility or never adopted in the first place? Perhaps an unexplored alternative?

I wonder if the hash marks on her arms represent tattoos. The lines across her torso could either represent tattoos or ribs. Very interesting find.

In my mind, art is a universal/cross-cultural means of communication. Before humans had written language, the only means of recording events and ideas was through art. Pre-historic people had only speach and art to communicate. The importance of children and fertility of females was necessary to their own survival. As children were a valuable source of labor contributing to generate their food supply. Breats supply nutrition to infants, and genitalia supply infants. Infants, if they survive, provide valuable labor contributions to the society. So of course the emphasis on the two most important aspects of prehistoric life. Bigger is better is a common theme among humanity's existence.

I think we tend to over-think the debate of "the purpose of art". Art is simply communication. Try to picture yourself in an environment where there is no written language. How would you communicate to another without speaking? Think about it.

That child perspective looks to me very interesting but, for sure, evidence will be hard to show. Maybe experimental archaeology will be able to test such interesting hypothesis. For the moment this unusual narration is only speculation... but thanks to Steve for that imaginative way of thinking.

(sorry for the english)

Alex

These full figured venuses were common the ancient world. I dont suppose the ancient hunter gatherer lifestyle would produce had any perception of obesity like we have today. The full figured females are clearly symbolic of fertility. Perhaps they were important in rituals to aid women giving birth. Human birth is extremely dangerous. It would seem only fitting that if there were rituals and scared figurines for anything, it would be surrounding the potentially fatal miracle of producing life. The swollen breasts, belly and detailed genitalia indicate a woman ready to deliver. The fact that the figures are so small makes them portable and easy to hold on to for the time any of the women goes into labor.

Is it just me or does this look more like a chicken trussed for baking?

Every time I read about an ancient piece of artwork being discovered it is implied that the piece was crafted by an adult. How is that known? Children begin 'drawing' at a young age. Could it be that some ancient pieces were indeed NOT crafted by an adult - but rather by a young person in training? Could it be possible that "Venus" was made by a young man or woman coming into puberty whose hormones were running rampant and the thought of experiencing the huge breasts and genitalia were heavily lustful on the mind of the individual? An engineer doesn't just sit down and design a bridge; they need to practice first. And my thoughts run through all cultures that young adults had to learn the ways before they set out to build a pyramid or carve a bowl. So I'm saying maybe Venus is simply the design of a young man's fancy - and nothing deeper than that.