Table of Contents

Main

Articles
Pan the Tool-Maker
Latest Homo erectus of Java
Neandertal mtDNA
Middle Stone Age Bone Industry from Katanda
Pedra Furanda
Venus Figures

Web Sites
The Ancient Indus Valley
Stolen Stones: The Modern Sack of Nineveh
Clovis and Beyond
Chimpanzee Cultures
Oldstoneage.com

ROM Visits
Egypt Exhibit
Evolution of Man Exhibit

Bibliography 		Soffer, O., Adovasio, J.M., Hyland, D.C. 2000. The "Venus" Figurines: Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Status in the Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology. v. 41, n. 4, p. 511-538.

This article documents Gravetian textiles and basketry in the Upper Paleolithic, and how they reflect stone age society. The Venus figurines are made of teracotta or clay, and the authors think that they may be wearing hats and clothes, due to patterning and marks on the figurines. Because of this, the authors came to the conclusion that textiles must have been an important part of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe, and they must have been associated with women's work. They found 36 textile impressions on the figurines.

There are many critiques to the authors' thesis. The first is that they say the clothing worn must be of ritual significance, and not everyday wear. Why they came to this conclusion is not apparent. Why rule out everyday wear worn by a low class of people?

The second critique is of the hats they claim the Venus figurines are wearing. Instead of hats, the impressions could very well be representing hair. Please see the picture below for one of these impressions.


The third critique is of the supposed clothing. The markings could be tatoos or or other forms of bodily ardornment, such as paint.

The fourth critique is of the association between women and textiles. Why do they automatically assume the women made the fabrics? Just because they might be wearing textiles does not mean there is a direct correlation. I wonder if they would have automatically assumed men made textiles if they first found a statue of a man wearing a hat.

The fifth critique is again based on the hat hypothesis. Instead of hats or even hair the pattern on the head could also just represent some sort of artistic design by the artist who made it. Please again see the picture above.

For the sixth critique, the association of high class with textiles is problematic. They have no evidence that only the high class had access to textiles, so they should not be making these connections.

For the final critique, all of their conclusions were based on a few statues, and ratio of dressed to undressed, and women to men. This could just be a coincidence of discovery. Perhaps they just haven't found enough of these figurines to make any definite conclusions.

Next Page