Small prehistoric female figurines commonly called “Venuses” have been uncovered throughout Europe.   Twenty-one Venuses have been unearthed in “Siberia via the Ukraine, Morovia, Austria, Rhineland, Baden, Belgium, Italy, and France into the heart of the Pyrenees” .  These Venuses, however, do not all fall into the same visual style as that of arguably the most famous Venus: The Venus of Willendorf.  Many Venuses render the female form as obese, faceless, with massive breasts and torsos, but upon closer inspection it is clear that the prehistoric Venuses may be divided up into several unique categories.  Some of the Venuses were hyper-stylized, others functioned as an object of ornamentation, and many were only centimeters in size so that they may be easily transportable and fit nicely into the palm of the owner’s hand.  Because we have no written record describing the purpose of the Venuses, one may only analyze the culture in which the Venuses existed in order to find clues of their significance and what these women symbolized.  In turn, these works of art also serve to offer unique insight into what type of life men and women led during Prehistoric times and their own concept of religion.

            Arguably the most well know image of woman in prehistoric art is the Venus of Willendorf.  Uncovered in 1908 in Willendorf near Austria, the small figurine (11.1 cm) was called “Venus” as a way to make fun of the fact that the woman does not convey the qualities of the Classical and modest Venus, which have bombarded art throughout history.  The woman here is not modest as she does not even attempt to conceal or breasts or genital area from the viewer.  Her pose and the sculptor’s attention to detail, instead, heighten the woman’s sexuality.  This prehistoric Venus is obese with massive breasts and a stomach so large that there is a fold of flesh along the hip.  This rendering is a complete departure from the delicate curvaceousness the Classical venues portrays.  Although the Classical Venus is idealized to a certain extent, she is still naturalistic. 
The Venus of Willendorf shifts from stylized, slightly simplified, to extremely detailed and naturalistic as the eyes moves down the sculpture.  Her head is not given a face or any indication of facial features.  Instead, her face is covered with thick braided plaits, which may be hair.  There are exactly seven braids which encircle the head.  Some find this number important as the number seven has long been regarded as a “magic number .  Continuing downward, her large breasts are further emphasized by the way the woman’s hands are holding the upper part of her breasts.  It must be noted that although fingers are clearly sculpted, the breasts lack the detail of the nipples.  As we move further downward, the woman becomes naturalistic again with great attention being paid to accurately depicting her genital area.  The woman’s bottom, although flattened, is also very detailed with special attention being paid to every curve and dimple of the body part.

The prevalence of female sculpture leads historians to ask what part of woman was society glorifying?  Many experts believe these small figurines functioned as symbols of fertility, as women main function in society was to produce and nourish their children . Experts also suggest that the Venus of Willendorf was originally coated in red pigment meant to signify menstrual blood.  This detail makes the fertility theory more plausible.   The neglected faces that many of the Venuses exhibit cause some to believe that the small figurines functioned as a sort of “anonymous sexual object” .  Others do not view the small Venuses as depicting a young, fertile woman, but rather elderly women.  This interpretation links the figurines to an elderly woman’s role in “witch-craft and magic” .  Clearly, women were viewed as complex creatures during Paleolithic and Neolithic age as they may be viewed as dangerous, but also nurturing. The two extreme views of women these hypotheses suggest are strikingly similar to the image of woman in Christian art as being sacred, pure, or holy or sinful, lustful, and dangerous. Above all, these theories suggest that women were viewed as powerful in society. 

Men and women during this time period were nomadic and hunter-gatherers.  The figurines’ portrayal of women as large and voluptuous does not correlate with the active lifestyle both men and women led.  This leads some to believe that the figurines represented an important woman in society who was not required to leave the home and was supplied with plenty of food.  Another suggestion is the figurine may not even depict a woman, but a female deity.  Paleolithic burials were very ceremonial, according to historians, and included placement of cowrie shells around d the corpses as well as cave paintings which depict both men and women dancing in what appears to be some sort of religious ceremony .  Society viewed birth as a miracle formed from a woman’s body and the mysteriousness of birth and all of earth’s life manifested itself in the worship of a Mother Goddess and the subsequent artistic renderings of her . 

Many historians urge the viewer to look at Paleolithic and Neolithic art without comparing it to our own society.  In Neolithic art, the Venus or Goddess is not holding a spear or sword, but is surrounded by symbols of nature through decorative motifs on vases and other works of art.  The subject matter all comes together to create a theme of “unity in all nature”, and the Goddess personifies this feeling of harmony .  Whereas so much of art throughout the centuries is viewed as a way to depict power, some suggest that prehistoric art was a way to show and celebrate nature-including life and death.  The way in which the art was “goddess centered” may also suggest that society was lead by women or functioned so that men and women worked together.  Although society may have been matriarchal, men were not suppressed to the extent of women in male-dominated societies .     

As mentioned earlier, the pre-historic Venuses were not all like the Venus of Willendorf.  These images show several Venuses found throughout Europe and each are unique and offer slight differences from the Venus of Willendorf.  Venus I is similar to the Venus of Willendorf in that the woman depicted is large with massive breasts, a torso that hangovers the hips, and lack of feet.  However, there is no great detail paid towards the genital area and there are some abstract facial features including two elongated horizontal slits which resemble eyes.  Her bottom is also flattened in the same manner as the Venus of Willendorf.  On the top of the Venus’s head there are four holes which relates to the Venus of Willendorf in that the number four may have held some religious or magical significance to the society.  One scholar suggested that the holes may have served to hold feathers during a ceremony .  Venus V is much more abstracted.  There is no indication of breasts or genital area, but the viewer may make out a torso and legs.  This Venus is broad and fat, but not womanly to the extent of the Venus of Willendorf.  The pierced top of the carving indicates the Venus was meant to be women as an amulet .  Venus XII, carved from ivory, is much more stylized and at first glance resembles a fork.  This statuette is “bizarre and hyperstylized” .  Venus XIV is another hyperstylized Venus, but there is the addition of large breasts seen with many of the more naturalistic Venuses. “The upper part of the body with head and neck have been contracted into a shorter, abdomen and legs into a longer cylinder Like Venus I, the left breast is larger than the right one . The work is decorated with lines of varying number scattered throughout the sculpture.  We do not know the significance of these lines.  A last example of Venus is very different from the previous in that the piece is made up of many stylized Venuses depicted only through breasts.  With previous Venuses, there was little detail paid to the genital area and here we see a culmination of that abstraction as the lower part of the Venus is not included at all.  Each of the beads repeats the upper part of the Venus with emphasis on the breasts.  Therefore, each of the beads represents a small “hyperstylized figurine of a woman” .  This Venus is not meant to be held in the palm of the hand, but displayed around the neck.  This makes the work of art much more public as it is meant to be on display instead of cradles in an individual’s hand.  The large number of Venuses repeated throughout the work may have offered extra protection to the wearer. 

The variety of styles and functions each Venus portrays makes all of the hypotheses detailing the Prehistoric Venuses’ function in society and the power that they held ring true.  Perhaps each hypothesis may be applied to a different Venus, as they are unique according to the time they were created and their place of origin.    Some of the figurines may have been anonymous sexual objects for the pleasure of male viewers.  Others, perhaps the ivory necklaces, may have offered some sort protection to the person who wore it, and others may have been symbols of worship or fertility charms.  Due to lack of written record, one may never know what special significance each figurine held other than women had some sort of positive and or/negative power in prehistoric society and this power carried through in art.