Seller: lithea (779) 100%, Location: Brno, Moravia, Ships to: Worldwide, Item: 191913030012 Material: resin, Details: Piece of extremely rare prehistoric art - resin cast replica. I will send worldwide, 30 days money back gurantee. Some info from the internet (archeofilia com): For most people, especially those who live outside of Italy, the northern Italian town of Savignano sul Panaro might not ring any bells, but archaeologists, art historians and “archaeophiles” in general will certainly associate the name of this town with the small Palaeolithic Venus that was found here in 1925. The curious circumstances surrounding the finding have already been discussed in our previous post, as well as the reasons why the little statue ended up in a museum in Rome. In this second post, however, we will show our reader around the exhibition that showcases the artefact, which, after 90 years, has come back home for a “2 month holiday”. Archeofila interviewed the archaeologist Margherita Mussi, Professor of Archaeology at La Sapienza University in Rome on the day of the opening of the exhibition. With her help we may be able to understand a little more about this fascinating object. The first important challenge that scholars had to face was that of dating the find. A total lack of a stratigraphic context, along with the fact that the worker who found the statue washed it, thereby eliminating any contemporary organic traces which might have been dated by radiocarbon testing, made exact dating of the object almost impossible. On top of that (and not just metaphorically), a year later a barn was built on the exact spot where the statue was found, making it difficult to carry out further archaeological surveys. Some trenches were excavated around the barn but with no success. The only way left for archaeologists to date the object was that of comparing it with other, similar artefacts. However, when we are talking about stone objects that were hand-crafted more than 20.000 years ago and were found in similarly undefined contexts, even this method is not exactly error-proof. Ugo Antonielli, director of the Pigorini museum in Rome, where the statue landed for good in 1926, attributed it to the Neolithic period based on comparisons with statues he considered to be from that age and, due to its smooth and polished surface, which, at the time was considered a distinctive characteristic of the Neolithic era. Neolithic, in fact, means New Stone age (i.e. that of polished stone), compared to the Palaeolithic era which was once considered the age of rough stone. However, the entire scientific community rejected that theory and agreed on dating the statue to the Gravettian period (between 28,000 and 21,000 years ago). Almost 190 female figures (including both in-the-round sculptures and bas reliefs) have been found in France, Italy, Central Europe, and Russia and, despite the vastness of these territories and the fact that they are so far apart, many of the figures share some common features. Often they present exaggerated breasts and wombs, while facial features and limbs are almost non-existent. At 22 cm, the Venus from Savignano is one of the biggest of the statues of this kind, but many other were very small, almost as if made to be carried around. Professor Margherita Mussi, an archaeologist from La Sapienza University in Rome who conducted an important study on the find, maintains that another characteristic these artefacts share is the fact that they were not sculpted of ordinary stone materials, but rather in stones with particular colours. Our example, for instance, is in Serpentinite (greenish) rock, while others are made of Steatite, which varies in colour from dark green to yellow. Another question scholars have tried to answer is exactly why Homo sapiens sculpted these objects. Palaeolithic art is still a controversial matter and it must be admitted that, without a valid interpretive code, it is very difficult to fully understand forms of art belonging to such remote cultures. Often, in fact, hypotheses concerning the interpretation of Palaeolithic art ended up being more a result of the age in which they were formulated than of the evidence found (just think of the 18th-century anthropologist, H. de Mortillet, who spoke of “art for art’s sake”). However, if we restrict the scope of the study to Venuses, the features that these artefacts share seem to speak about their meaning by themselves. In this age, people lived in small groups scattered about the desolate landscapes left by the last glacial period. They were hunters and gatherers and they found refuge in caves or in natural shelters. These people, whose lives were so full of danger and harshness,, decided to celebrate the generosity of the superior being who gave them shelter and food, or perhaps sought to ingratiate themselves with that entity for their fecundity these statues. This is why some scholars speak about MOTHER GODESSES. The way that people of the Palaeolithic age worked and sculpted these objects is a sign of a certain sacred quality they attributed to the stone itself, which, at the end of the day, was part of that superior being. According to Margherita Mussi, the people of this age didn’t want to impress their ideas onto the stone, but rather followed the natural lines of the stones, and this is one of the main differences between these sculptures and Neolithic ones. There are, for example, Venuses with only one breast, because the stone had only one bump where the breasts should be in all lilihood. Moreover, many of them are slightly asymmetric. Ours here, for example, appears a bit bent on one side. The original stone probably suggested this feature.