re chris witcombe's willendorf site, it was interesting to see how he encapsulated information on what is arguably part of one of the most speculated-upon series of cultural finds in prehistory. still, he doesn't discuss one possible theory - that the willendorf figurines, in particular, may have been fetishes used in childbirth, e.g. sortof palmpilots, handheld during birthing (suggesting they were made by/for women). as well, he doesn't mention the feminist archaeologists - responsible for much of the changes since the 1970s in archaeological theory regarding women - although he does use their arguments, e.g. Conkey, Dobres, Scott, Wylie.
actually, there is a range of artefacts in various forms and sizes (sculptures, reliefs, wall imagery) found across europe (france to russia) from this period (27,000-21,000 BCE according to 1997 testing) depicting the human form in more than one position; this includes male, male/female, human/animal representations - with/without feet, hands, facial and other details. much speculation can be (and has been) made and read into these figurines supporting a range of theories, notably from otherwise seemingly sane scholars, based on the Playboy heterosexual school of archaeology : - "This enables us to understand how our ancestors ... may have imagined female genitals warming to their fingers as they touched pieces of limestones" (Collins and Onians 1978) - "... with enormous buttocks and pendulous breasts, along with vulva drawn on the cave walls [they] were undoubtedly male art creations, for themselves or for other men ... the drawing or carvings were made, touched, carved, and fondled by men" (Guthrie 1984) - "When compared with erotica postures assumed by models in erotic art publications like Playboy, the women in Paleolithic art seem to be quite similar." (ibid) there's no reason to suppose that over a 6,000 year period and 3,000 mile spread these images were all created with some continuous linkage of purpose and means based on some stylistic and cultural unity - although they may have been, however remote the probability. and there's no reason not to think that some/all may have been made by women (maybe for women) rather than by/for men. etc. etc. fact is, we simply just don't know about events of that period. we are, for the most part, projectors of our own belief systems. [like art existing before the mercantile class invented it during that great craze of conspicuous consumption in italy 1300-1600.] indoeuropean myths and rituals represented in early recorded samplings +/- 5,000-2,500 BCE (including all our cosmologies which encompasses earth goddess myths) are more closely related to our own time period than any events from 27,000-21,000 BCE. from what we know about the last 5-7 thousand years - which is not as much as one might suppose - histories are series of ruptured incidents/accidents that we string together as we need to. the multiple layering of possible meanings, motivations and material conditions are the make up of our multiple histories. and inventing histories (biographies, belief systems, &c, &c) is our business nez pas. m. .
