the archeological evidence is rather consistent and clear. I'm aware of critiques trying to change the interpretation of what the female figures are for, but nobody denies that they are naked female figures. And the critiques don't seem to have found much purchase among archeologists.

▲

AlecSchueler 3 days ago | parent [-]

> the archeological evidence is rather consistent and clear.

What are you referring to?

> but nobody denies that they are naked female figures.

No, but the suggestion above that they were the prehistoric equivalent to cartoons of school girls lifting their skirts hasn't been the dominant theory for about thirty years.

> And the critiques don't seem to have found much purchase among archeologists.

This is simply incorrect. They became part of the general archeological discourse as far back as the 1990s and are now a normal part of any such discussion. Multiple theories now coexist and to frame those critical of the original Venus ideas as being somehow more fringe than the fertility/pornography theories is just misleading.

▲

ants_everywhere 3 days ago | parent [-]

I assume you're referring to the Catherine McCoid decolonizing gender stuff from the 90s? That is still talked about, but I'm not aware of it being taken seriously as a theory.

There are multiple theories yes, but they aren't substantially varied.

We also have a whole lineage of art from the prehistoric age to today and more figures than we did in the 1990s. Art from every period includes nude representations of women. The more recent art (which we are able to say more about)have connections to goddesses and fertility/reproduction/sex. The continuity of art suggests there should be a continuity of explanation. But the McCoid theory handles the oldest art as a special case different in kind from art that didn't come long after.

Even among the competing hypotheses, they're more closely related than many people realize. This is because religion, sex and fertility were more closely related in the ancient world than they are today. See, for example, temple prostitution.

The one outlier among the current theories I'm aware of is that the figures are supposed to show you what obese people look like. The evidence for that isn't great. For example the 2012 Dixson paper is based on having college students rate the statues for attractiveness, which seems like it's going to tell you nothing useful about the statues. But even they say the statues were about survival and reproduction, e.g.

> They may, instead, have symbolized the hope for survival and for the attainment of a well-nourished (and thus reproductively successful) maturity, during the harshest period of the major glaciation in Europe.

	▲	AlecSchueler 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I assume you're referring to the Catherine McCoid decolonizing gender stuff from the 90s? Amongst others. > That is still talked about, but I'm not aware of it being taken seriously as a theory. I'm not sure what to say to this because you're essentially arguing that your own ignorance is representative of the reality in the field. You recognise that these questions have been part of the discourse now for a third of a century but at the same time suggest it's all done in jest? I really don't know how to read this. > We also have a whole lineage of art from the prehistoric age to today We very much do not. There are many gaps, especially significant ones in pre-history and you're skipping multiple millennia to stretch a connection to temple prostitution, as well as ignoring the very clearly evident variation in the representations of women more recently across geographies. > Even among the competing hypotheses... Well we can end it here because the salient point is that pornographic representations of women is no longer the dominant theory and you seem to accept that.