Venus of Savignano

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Venus of Savignano is of serpentine -made Venus figurines from the Palaeolithic , 1925 in the Savignano sul Panaro in the development of a house in the vicinity of Modena has been discovered at a depth of about one meter. No connection between the find and the environment can be determined. Today it is kept in the Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico "Luigi Pigorini" in Rome (inventory number 106610).

With 22.1 cm and a weight of 586.5 g, it is one of the largest known Venus figures, about 190 of which were dated to the Upper Paleolithic of Europe and Siberia. It comes from the so-called "statuette horizon" of Gravettien and is probably between 20,000 and 25,000 years old, occasionally it is also dated to an age of 29,000 years.

Dating

However, this dating was controversial from the start, as the figurine was cleaned after its discovery, and thus all organic traces and traces that could be dated using common methods were destroyed. The wife of the explorer Olindo Zambelli had even advised him to throw away the “old stone”. Since there were no Upper Paleolithic finds in northeastern Italy at that time, a group of archaeologists led by Ugo Antonielli , director of the Roman Museum that still houses the figurine, assumed in 1926 that it was from the Neolithic . One of the first to examine and describe the figurine was Paolo Graziosi , the son of the second owner Giuseppe Grazioso. Based on stylistic comparisons with other Venus figurines - such as those from Chiozza di Scandiano (Reggio), from Lake Trasimeno and those from Balzi-Rossi Caves near Ventimiglia - it was concluded that the figurine must have been Upper Palaeolithic. As early as 1935, the Atti della Società Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze said it was “sicuramente paleolitica” (p. 337). Paolo Graziosi, in his overarching presentation of Paleolithic art, again came to the same conclusion in 1956 because of these similarities. Margherita Mussi believed she could see that the artist, like Michelangelo , the painter and sculptor of the Renaissance , had only released the potential of the source material.

description

Front view
profile

The Venus of Savignano, which is in perfect state of preservation except for recently inflicted damage, but which could be repaired very well, is 221 mm high, up to 50 mm wide, up to 55 mm thick and weighs 585 g. Using X-ray diffraction , it was possible to detect the starting material as steatite in the Roman Istituto Centrale per il Restauro . In addition, minerals from the chlorite group were found, as well as traces of iron oxide . Talk could not be detected .

The surface varies in color from brownish, especially in the area of ​​the “head” (estremità prossimale) and the left side, as well as greenish, especially on the “legs” (estremità distale) and the right side. The right arm and the left flank, however, are blackish.

The figurine consists of two elongated, conical elements at its ends. At the upper end of the lower of these elements, the abdomen begins with a sweeping buttocks as a strong thickening, which is arranged almost symmetrically to the counterpart that represents the breasts. The arms are barely indicated, the legs are simplified and stylized.

In the front view, Venus is not completely symmetrical. The right chest and even more so the right leg are made much thicker. The left side is more curved, which gives the impression of flexion. This impression is reinforced by the furrow between the legs, the axis of symmetry of which is shifted to the left.

The upper cone ends in a rounded shape, which is however worn (affilata) and flattened from front to back. On the front it is accentuated by a depression that extends up to shoulder level, where it highlights these two anatomical elements by curving outwards. The anatomically expected shoulders are not recognizable by any other elements of the figurine. The indentation continues downward until it forms the top of an isosceles triangle.

At the base of this triangular zone is the root of the breasts, which are large, pear-shaped and clearly separated from each other. In continuation of the triangle zone, there is a flattened, elongated zone on both sides of the breasts, which gives the impression of arms from the side and back view. The statue has no hands. At their lower ends, the breasts diverge and form a triangle, which is underlaid by a deep, horizontal furrow.

From there, a belly bulges out that extends just as far forward as the breasts. The navel forms a depression. On the back of the abdomen there is a flattened area, drawn in opposite the buttocks, which expands towards the hips and has been worked on with great precision. The abdomen is separated from the pubic underneath by simply stepping back.

The pubic mound protrudes, but lacks further anatomical details. The triangular shape is determined on the upper edge by the border to the abdomen that recedes there again, on the right and left by two furrows that mark the border to the thighs. These two legs extend in the direction of the flanks. On the back, the legs are only separated by a groove that is lost further down. Knees are not shown, the feet are only indicated. The adjoining cone is less worn than the upper cone, also flattened, but is characterized on the left by a facet that is not perfectly shaped.

Manufacturing steps, possible traces of ocher

The rough machining was carried out as the first machining step with hard blows, which can be seen on the surface in the form of concave parts of the surface. This was followed by soft strokes (picchiettatura), the facets of the rough machining are of great regularity, executed in parallel and of shallow depth, traces that occasionally overlap. The surface was smoothed by movements along the figurine, i.e. longitudinally. While the concave areas were only slightly changed, the convex areas were flattened because they were more exposed. Some protruding areas were planed off, probably by dragging the figurine over a rough stone surface. This created flat and smooth facets that allowed the figurine to stay in balance. This was particularly true of the sides, namely the arms, buttocks, and thighs. Polishing left fine, streak-like, transverse stripes, often arched. The reddish traces could be remnants of ocher , which was particularly evident on the left side of the cone-like peg, then on the right arm and on the extreme end.

Discovery, repository

The figurine was discovered 2.5 km northeast of Savignano in the Panaro valley, a tributary of the Po. It was found in what is known as Ca 'Pra' Martin, on the road from Bologna to Vignola. The site is a Worm Ice Age terrace, which is 10 m above the surrounding area and 106 m above sea level. The discoverer was the worker Olindo Zambelli, who noticed them in 1925 while excavating. He later reported that the shape reminded him less of a figure than of an old weapon. He asked the local veterinarian and the community secretary, from there the sculptor Giuseppe Graziosi learned about the find. He wrote to Ugo Antonielli, the director of the Roman Reale Museo Preistorico Etnografico , the Royal Museum of Prehistory and Ethnology, that he immediately fell in love with the figurine. The sculptor took them with him on the promise of compensation. But the museum director immediately recognized that it was a unique piece of inestimable value. The figurine was then handed over to the state as a cultural asset under pressure from the museum director.

Scientific and personal discussions

Antonielli sent all Antichità dell'Emilia , Salvatore Aurigemma, photographs of the figurine to the person in charge of the Soprintendenza Regia . He asked him to have a scientific excavation carried out at the site. He himself had so far refrained from publishing it in a scientific journal because he had promised the sculptor Graziosi that he would leave this task to his son. This son was none other than the later specialist in prehistoric art Paolo Graziosi . The competition for the first publication resulted in considerable tensions in the period that followed. Antonielli was the first to publish his results in late 1925 and early 1926. Paolo Graziosi's manuscript, however, was rejected by the Bollettino d'Arte . Graziosi's publication was not published until 1926, namely in the Archivio per l'Antropologia e l'Etnologia of 1924, which was not printed until two years later, if not not until 1927. According to the author, this publication was a presentation at the Società Italiana di Antropologia e Etnologia preceded on March 3, 1926. This was followed by the previously announced contribution by Antonielli in the Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana - also dated 1925, but not published until 1926. Between 1926 and 1928 there were four other publications on the find by Antonielli. For his part, Graziosi has now published an article in the Archivio per l'Antropologia e l'Etnologia , again dated 1925, but not printed until 1927. In the background there was the dispute between Tuscany and Rome, in which the former school assumed that the Upper Paleolithic was an indisputable reality in Italy, while for the opponents from Rome the Neolithic followed the Moustérien , with the exception of a few "Grimaldian" sites from the extreme end of the Paleolithic.

In 1927, Aldobrandino Mochi attacked the museum director with the argument that he had robbed an aspiring young scientist of the opportunity to create the first publication of such an important piece. Antonielli was surprised by the vehemence of this attack, but for his part assumed the revenge of the Graziosi, who would not have tolerated the loss of the figurine any more than the scientific community in Tuscany, since the figurine was now in Rome.

For Antonielli, who belonged to the Pigorini school, it was necessary to provide evidence of a placement in the Neolithic. In his opinion, there were three reasons for this. For one thing, the figurine was polished, which, in his opinion, did not match the Paleolithic. On the other hand, Venus did not match other figurines that he regarded as pre-lithic, and finally the fact that there were Neolithic artefacts in the area around Savignano, where the figurine was found, but none from the Paleolithic. But with these weak arguments, Antonielli drew criticism from almost all of science. The similarities with Paleolithic finds, such as the Pulcinella (Balzi Rossi), spoke in favor of a higher age. Antonielli withdrew from the debate and admitted in a final contribution that he had found little consensus. It recognized that it would be preferable to assign Venus to the Pleistocene .

It was exhibited in Savignano from April 5 to May 4, 2014 and was intended to make the project “Savignano, Città dell'Archeologia” known beyond the borders of the town. The house gave the figurine an age of 28,000 years. The exhibition had 3,215 visitors, although the museum was only open in the mornings, apart from the weekend.

Excavations

Antonielli had already asked the Regia Soprintendenza all Antichità dell'Emilia to excavate the site, but this question was initially overshadowed by the dispute between him and the Graziosi. As Margherita Mussi discovered in 2005, four documents were available for the reconstruction of these processes, namely a typewritten report dated May 8, 1926, signed with “GC Montanari”, a similar report dated the same date by “A. Negrioli ”, the inspector of the Soprintendenza , then an unsigned and undated writing, probably from one of the excavators, namely A. Pedrazzi of the Museo civico di Modena , and finally a planimetry of the excavation zone, which in turn was made by one or more of those involved originates. The excavation took place from April 22nd to May 28th, 1926. An attempt was made to dig as close as possible to the site by means of five trenches. More than 60 m³ of earth were removed and dug to a depth of over 2 m.

Between the surface and a section at a depth of 15 to 70 cm, some potsherds, a Napoleonic coin and teeth, which may have come from pigs, were found. Below the subsequent layer of clay, initially yellowish, then reddish, and of varying thickness, with iron and manganese-containing sinter again, at a depth of 1.06 to 1.85 m, there was stony material, partially lacunar, also of varying thickness. Only in the deepest trench, as the fourth layer, and up to a depth of 2.35 m, was yellowish clay mixed with sand (as described in the Negrioli report), but more likely a layer of rubble overlaid with clay or marl (according to Mussi more accurate Pedrazzi report). None of the reports contain a single reference to prehistoric finds. At best, Negrioli, who had other obligations, could visit the excavation site towards the end. Montanari, who represented him and who had only just started his work in the Soprintendenza , was of completely unclear qualifications.

Venus was discovered during the construction of a stable at a depth of about 1.2 to 1.4 m, namely on the northwestern edge of this building, which means that the site was between ditch 1 and 5. Correspondingly, yellowish traces of clay were found on the figurine, as can be seen in the oldest photos, i.e. before the statue was cleaned. Due to the good state of preservation of the Fiurine, a longer transport by water or storage in sharp-edged rubble can be excluded. The layer in which it was found was deposited on the Panaro about 30,000 years ago.

literature

  • La Venere a Savignano. Esposizione dal 5 Aprile al 4 Maggio 2014 , Museo della Venere e dell'Elefante, Savignano 2014 (exhibition catalog).
  • Margherita Mussi : Problèmes récentes et decouvertes anciennes: la statuette de Savignano (Modene, Italie) , in: Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de l'Ariège 51 (1996) 55-79.
  • Margherita Mussi: La Venere di Savignano: scoperta, polemiche, descrizione e prospettive , in: Origini XXVII (2005) 219–246.
  • Margherita Mussi: Les statuettes italiennes de pierre tendre de Savignano et Grimaldi , in: Henri Delporte (ed.): "La Dame de Brassempouy", Actes du colloque de Brassempouy (July 1994) , Liège 1995, pp. 165-185.
  • Raymond Vaufrey: La statuette féminine de Savignano sur le Panaro (Province de Modène) , in: L'Anthropologie 36 (1926) 429-435.
  • Ugo Antonielli: Una statuetta femminile di Savignano sul Panaro ed il problema della statuine dette steatopigi , in: Bullettino Paletn. Italiano 45 (1925) 35-61.
  • Paolo Graziosi: A proposito della Venere di Savignano , in: Archivio per l'Antropologia e l'Etnologia 55 (1925) 38-46.

Web links

Remarks

  1. ^ Margherita Mussi : Earliest Italy. An Overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic , Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York et al. 2001, p. 262.
  2. ↑ Paolo Graziosi: L'arte dell'antica età della pietra , Sansoni, 1956, p. 58.
  3. ↑ The description follows that of Margherita Mussi: La Venere di Savignano: scoperta, polemiche, descrizione e prospettive , in: Origini XXVII (2005) 219-246, here: pp. 227-229.
  4. ↑ Archivio per l'antropologia e la etnologia 57-58 (1929), p. 243. The figurine was given to Arduino Colasanti.
  5. ^ Ugo Antonielli: Una statuetta femminile steatopige preistorica, trovata nel Modenese , in: Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni I (1925) 299-300.
  6. ^ Margherita Mussi: La Venere di Savignano: scoperta, polemiche, descrizione e prospettive , in: Origini XXVII (2005) 219-246, here: p. 221.
  7. ^ Graziosi, 1925.
  8. ^ Associazione culturale Ponte Alto - Giuseppe Graziosi .
  9. ^ Margherita Mussi: La Venere di Savignano: scoperta, polemiche, descrizione e prospettive , in: Origini XXVII (2005) 219-246, here: p. 223.