Another 19th century day in Europe, another rich amateur archaeologist makes a world-changing discovery. Paul Hurault, 8th Marquis de Vibraye—the dapper chap with the hypnotizing dog in the painting below—found something that would change our view of history.
Hurault found a figurine in the sediment of the Vézère valley of France, and it was obvious that it was a very old human form. He had no real idea how old it was, but based on where it was in the sediment, it must have been very, very old—stone age, for sure. Later radiocarbon dating indicated that this figure was 16,000 years old.
Here’s what it looks like:
The name that sprung to mind for this artifact was Venus Impudique—Immodest Venus. Like many other first names throughout history, we seem to be stuck with it.
Hurault was familiar with the Venus Pudica—Modest Venus—pose common in art, where a “Venus” goddess modestly attempts to cover a breast with one hand and her crotch with another hand, or maybe with some cloth.
Now, we know full well that many of these ancient Greek and Roman statues actually were Venuses. The Greeks named her Aphrodite, but the concept of this particular goddess was the same: Venus reigned over fertility, love, and beauty, and she was incredibly powerful and important.
When Hurault called the figure he discovered “Immodest Venus”, he was just using contrast to point out that this female figure wasn’t like those he had learned about from the classical Greco-Roman world. Unfortunately, the archaeological world leapt to several quick conclusions.
What’s in a name, you might ask? An awful lot, I might answer.
You might already be familiar with the Venus of Willendorf, this little statuette from about 30,000 years ago:
Now, the use of the name “Venus” is metaphorical here. They don’t really think humans 30,000 years ago worshipped the Goddess Aphrodite. It’s great that people pick up on that aspect almost immediately, but there’s another thorn that seems to be stuck in my foot.
You see, there’s still this overwhelming perception that these figurines were idols, representing powerful goddesses. Archaeologists don’t really share this view, but instead debate amongst one another. Some speculate that these were self-portraits, paleolithic porn, or part of an outfit (some of them have holes, so they can be worn).
Nevertheless, for most of the last century, most of the great archaeological minds were stuck in the mud, so to speak. They believed the idea that our ancient ancestors must have had a well formed concept of religion, and that these must somehow be connected to a ritual.
Simply assuming that this was the case may have damaged our understanding of our past. Our understanding of our past influences the way we see ourselves today, too.
In looking back on the story of the Venus Impudique, I can’t help but wonder about the Venuses of our own era.
In a time where information proliferates at an exponential rate, are we too, in our quest for quick understanding, guilty of hasty classifications? Just as the archaeologists of yore may have been too eager to see deities in stone, we might be imposing modern narratives onto a world that is vastly intricate and nuanced.
I’m quick to point out how more is likely to change during the 21st century than changed in the previous several centuries, and that might be an enormous understatement. With so many new ways of life and brand new inventions heading our way, we would do well to remember not to be too hasty in defining or labeling things.
What Venuses are we unwittingly creating today? And more importantly, how can we cultivate a culture of deeper understanding to see beyond the seductive simplicity of a single story?
A great book on the topic (and a hook to a future essay I'm writing) is Goddesses: Mysteries of the Feminine Divine by Joseph Campbell. In here he talks about these Goddesses, specifically their nakedness:
“The thing to note is that all these female figurines are simply naked, whereas the male figures in all the caves are represented in some kin d of garment, dressed as shamans. The implication is that in embodying the d ivine, the female operates in her own character, simply in her nature, while the male magic functions not from the nature of the men’s bodies but from the natuer of their roles in the society.
This brings out a very important point for the while history of the female in mythology: She represents the nature principle. We are born from her physicall. The male, on the other hand represents the social principle and social roles.”
Many terms immediately sprang to mind when I first saw the figurine. "Immodest Venus" wasn't one of them. But "paleolithic porn" was definitely closer to home.
I think us anthropomorphizing AI Chatbots is a form of hasty classification. That's why we use terms like "hallucinations" when referring to their made-up output instead of something like "errors."
In some way, a degree of simplification is helpful. Heuristics let us grasp the concept quicker, and we can build our subsequent deeper understanding upon that first "shortcut"