Talk:Venus of Hohle Fels

Article title

It is unknown what the figurine will come to be known by, being just known as A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany as yet, but "Venus of Tübingen" seems like a good guess based on the other "Venuses". But it may also be "Venus of Hohle Fels", "Venus of Schelklingen" or similar. --dab (𒁳) 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, I just noted that Schelklingen is much closer to Ulm than to Tübingen. It will probably be either of "Venus of Schelklingen" or "Venus of Hohle Fels". --dab (𒁳) 18:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

2009/05/14: The sculpture is being reported throughout the media as the Venus of Hohle Fels. I did not see any references to it as the Venus of Schelklingen until I had difficluty finding this entry about it in Wikipedia when I searched for it by the more common name. Is it time to rename the article Venus of Hohle Fels?

70.59.21.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

You are right, it does seem to turn out that way. Note that "Venus of Schelklingen", "Venus von Schelklingen" also sees some use though. --dab (𒁳) 14:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Kulturvolk

"World's first civilized people". I think it is more accurate to simply state that the findings are among the oldest representational art found anywhere in the world. Claims of first civilized people are far-fetched at this time. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't too happy with the translation of Kulturvolk as "civilized people". I was following a dictionary's lead, but in this case, this translation is misleading. It would be more appropriate to say that with the Aurignacian, we get full behavioral modernity for the first time, including figurative art and music. There aren't of course any paleolithic "civilizations" in the narrow sense. But note that the "world's first Kulturvolk" thing is indeed attributed to Conard, and it is the headline thrown around by the press.[1] --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

archaic Homo sapiens

The point of the archaic Homo sapiens article is discussing H. sapiens in paleoanthropological terms, seeing that Homo sapiens just redirects to Human. Now archaic Homo sapiens would be H. sapiens prior to behavioral modernity, viz. covering the period 200,000 to 40,000 BC. This article here of course documents the very transition from archaic H. sapiens to (behaviourally) fully modern H. sapiens, so if you like whoever made this figurine was the first ever non-archaic H. sapiens. --dab (𒁳) 20:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree, there is no one definition of Archaic homo sapiens, and the term is in dispute. However the most conventional definition of archaic homo sapiens refers to, Homo sapiens neanderthalis and homo sapiens heidelbergensis, and homo sapiens rhodesiensis but not Homo sapiens sapiens. All the species or subspecies have one thing in common, their brain size is large and about the same size.[2]. Homo sapiens sapiens has a chin, no brow ridges and a prominent forehead. So Cro-Magnon is considered homo sapiens sapiens, not archaic. Also archaic does not refer to pre-behavioral modernity, they are usually referred to as Anatomically modern humans and are distinguished from behaviorally modern humans. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ahem, homo sapiens heidelbergensis and homo sapiens rhodesiensis are just piped links you created. These aren't sapiens subspecies. The redirect Homo sapiens neanderthalis refers to a minority view that the Neanderthals might qualify as a sapiens subspecies. If you accept that view, then yes, Neanderthals would qualify as archaic Homo sapiens, but evidence against this is rather overwhelming. --dab (𒁳) 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes these are just piped links I created, but the article archaic homo sapiens needs to be refined and corrected. As Dawkins mentioned, the Archaic homo sapiens model views the species homo sapiens as having evolved from homo erectus 500kya, mainly beginning with homo heidelbergensis or homo rhodesiensis or their MRCA somewhere in Africa. The split between erectus and archaic sapiens is characterized by a rapid increase in brain size from 900cc in erectus to 1400cc in archaic sapiens, which is slightly larger than the brain size of modern humans. Since they have brains as large as moderns, they have been given the name "sapiens". However, as you have pointed out, not everyone agrees with referring to homo heidelbergensis or homo rhodesiensis as homo sapiens. In this regard, it is the archaic homo sapiens model that is a somewhat minority view. But either way, cro-magnon is not considered Archaic, but fully modern, anatomically and behaviorally. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, you have a point, but I suggest we should take this discussion to Talk:Archaic Homo sapiens. I concede that by virtue of producing art, Cro Magnon move out of the "archaic" category even in the sense of "before full behavioral modernity". --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Context

While discovery of the figurine is of significant importance, it should be placed in the context of other discoveries. The current impression is that this discovery has radically changed the dates of the origins of symbolic behavior and behavioral modernity. In actuality, though the figurine is the oldest sculpture, is still well within the range of other upper paleolithic and late stone age artifacts. Even in the absence of symbolic artifacts, it is known that when humans left africa, they were already behaviorally modern, otherwise they would not have built boats to get to Australia. In addition, it is already known from South Africa, that humans were heavily into symbolism, because they transported copious amounts of ochre from long distances to Blombos Cave. Ochre is a completely useless material except for painting. Basically I propose giving context, such as sophisticated upper paleolithic tools, later sculptures and paintings, and known artifacts from middle stone age Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. Do any of the sources we have discuss the find in such a context? If not, I'm sure they will begin to after a while. This is a new find, after all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

it is true that the discovery doesn't represent a complete paradigm shift. It is still within the Aurignacian, albeit the very beginning, and other figurines from the Aurignacian were already known, notably the Venus of Galgenberg, dated to some 30kya. If we're being conservative, the discovery has extended the "Venus figurine" time horizon by about five millennia. Maybe ten millennia. This is significant, but not utterly and completely mind-blowing. The Blombos Cave is a completely different story. If somebody were to come up with a sculpture from the African Middle Stone Age, more than 50 kya, now that would be completely unprecedented. It appears that the earliest certain figurative art known from Africa dates to about 10 kya, with more uncertain claims for times around 27 kya. 50 ky old artwork in Africa would be 200% to 500% the age of the currently oldest known, not just 120% as with the Hohle Fels discovery.

Of course humans had culture since at least 70 kya. There is still a difference between smearing your body with ochre, and creating statues and flutes. Behavioral modernity took 30,000 years in the making. The Blombos Cave and the out-of-Africa migration are signs of incipient behavioral modernity, but only with the Aurignacian do we have evidence of full behavioral modernity. This is what our sources are talking about when they say "the world's first Kulturvolk. I don't quite see why Wapondaponda would want to de-emphasize the monumental importance of this. Sure, we don't know if it was precisely "Swabian Alb, 40 kya", that's just our terminus ante quem. It may well be 45 kya or even 50 kya, but we just don't know that at this point. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the finding is important, but in reality it isn't really a surprise. The continuity theorists have long believed that modern human behavior occurred much earlier than has been detected in the fossil record. Colin Renfrew has been specifically addressing the issue from as early as 1996 calling it the "sapient paradox". Basically, most of the evidence of early symbolic behavior in the world is from the upper paleolithic, yet it is known that humans had populated significant parts of Asia and Australia prior to the Aurignacian. In fact humans were in Australia by 46,000 years ago, before humans started entering Europe 40,000. Some rock paintings in Australia have been dated to 40kya. But nonetheless sculptures and figurative are rare in the fossil record of most places around the world until recently. But we know that all contemporary human populations create figurative art, abstract art and even anthropomorphic sculptures. Even Australians who could have been isolated since their arrival 46kya create art and sculptures, yet there are no figurines in their fossil record dating to 40kya. According to Renfrew this could reflect different cultural traditions in that European upper paleolithic peoples culture was based on durable materials. Others have suggested that European climate and geography is ideal for the preservation of fossils. Europe has an abundance of deep limestone caves, which aren't found in places like Africa.[3]

The abstract engravings from Blombos Cave are specifically mentioned in relation to the origins of art in the abstract of the article, A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany. I haven't yet been able to access the full article since it is a subscription website, but the authors have discussed it in the media as well [4]. In addition, there wasn't only ochre pencils found at Blombos, but personal ornaments made from sea shells. My suggestion at this point is to include the references to abstract art from Africa, since it was also referenced by the authors of the study. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in your 40 ky old Australian cave paintings. According to the stuff we keep on Wikipedia, the oldest figurative art in Australia dates to about 17 kya, the oldest figurative art in Africa to about 10 kya. It is impossible that even the Australians remained absolutely isolated, barring all cultural diffusion, over 30 millennia. And even if they did, there is nothing to preclude that they innovated figurative art independently at a later date (although 17 kya is terribly suggestive of contact related to the trans-pacific migration).

Again, I admit that zig-zag and cross-hatched scratches in cave walls are important, because animals don't make them. But they are metaphorical lightyears from figurative art. In terms of child art, the step from Blombos to Hohe Fels corresponds to the progress from about age 1 to age 4.--dab (𒁳) 17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is fair to compare the two products in that manner because the blombos ocher are actually pencils, and not necessarily the final product. There were used to paint on a soft surface, either on human bodies or animal skins. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence of symmetrical design which is evidence of advanced behavior. We also have san rock art from the Apollo ll caves in South Africa dating to 26kya.[5]. There have been several claims from Australia, [6], [7] of 40-50ky old art. So basically, the Venus finding is early but it is among numerous other findings both in Europe and the rest of the world from similar time periods. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Apollo 11 paintings are certaily interesting, and much more relevant in this context than the Blombos stuff. I am perfectly willing to assume there was figurative art in Africa at 27 kya, and we should certainly state as much at Art of the Upper Paleolithic, but we need to note that this remains uncertain. I also wouldn't be blown away by African cave art from 40 kya or even 50 kya, but there is simply no evidence for that. Which is why we state that the Venus of Hohle Fels is the oldest known instance of figurative art, we cannot apodictically claim that it "is" the oldest instance. Earlier examples may yet be discovered, anywhere. The distribution of finds does suggest, how ever, a sort of asymptotical behavior that makes it unlikely that anything will come up that significantly predates 40 kya (which is also why the Venus of Tan-Tan and related stuff are clearly bogus).

Please let us take such general considerations to Art of the Upper Paleolithic, and please let us stop burdening this article with idle speculation about the Middle Paleolithic. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Firsts

I know the scientific community is excited about the find. But the list of "firsts" is a bit exaggerated. First music, first art, first religion, first civilized people etc. I think its really stretching it. What the find has done is push back the date of the earliest artistic sculpture by about 5000 years which is still within the range of the Aurignacian. There is still a lot of evidence of symbolic behavior from previous periods, some of which is associated with the archaic hominids, such as at Atapuerca. Bone tools are technically works of art, the only difference is that tools have a utilitarian function, and sculptures are purely symbolic. So the bone tools that existed from sites in the middle east and Africa are could also be considered "art". Wapondaponda (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"first music", "first religion", let alone "first civilization" (which nobody did claim, I have already explained that this was a translation artefact, above) certainly cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. These are speculations, and need to be attributed to whoever made them, provided they are notable & quotable. What we can, and should, state in Wikipedia's voice is "oldest known figurative art" and "oldest known musical instrument".

I do not see why you keep bringing up the Middle Paleolithic. The significance of this is entirely within the Upper Paleolithic: These were "firsts" so far dated to around 30,000 BP, and they can now be dated to before 35,000 BP, that's all. --dab (𒁳) 09:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Significance

I moved the brief description that appeared in the combined "Description/Significance" section into a separate section, and I added a "Significance" section. I then briefly compared the generally accepted theory of the figurine's significance with the theory that that the figurine was sculpted to personify the developmental stage of a volvate, perhaps entheogenic, mushroom in accordance with the entheomycological interpretation of the Venus of Willendorf, which appears in that entry.

I fully recognize that very few, if any, people here will understand this interpretation or its importance, for reasons I discuss in the referenced Anistoriton article. However, as most mycologists, ethnobotanists, and ethnopharmacologists, as well as some art historians, will or should recognize the validity and importance of this interpretation, I would greatly appreciate not having to redo any more undo's. Berlant (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Berlant

There is a bit of a problem here with conflict of interest, see WP:COI. You're adding your own journal articles to our articles.Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the "mushroom theory" is notable. The source presented seems to be self published and not peer reviewed. For this to be notable there would have to be other reliable sources referring to the original paper. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, WP:UNDUE applies here. Similar material has been added to

Ekron
Khepresh
Hedjet
Entheogen
Venus of Berekhat Ram
Venus of Willendorf
and should probably be removed. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If this issue is really relevant to so many articles, then certainly it should have its own article, or at least a section in Venus figurines. However it is not even mentioned in that article. If new independent evidence for the notability of this theory is not presented pretty soon, it should be removed from all articles. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree; I'd rather have one short section at Venus figurines, if anything, than all these long sections in short articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that when something like this isn't discussed in other reliable sources that it isn't significant enough to be in any of our articles. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting .. I thought it looked like a chicken. --108.28.13.107 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Venus of Hohle Fels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140810061713/http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Ice-Age-iLion-Mani-is-worlds-earliest-figurative-sculpture/28595 to http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Ice-Age-iLion-Mani-is-worlds-earliest-figurative-sculpture/28595

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)