The Young Woman Gathering Crocus Flowers from about 1630 BCE is a very representative image. Her shaved head symbolizes her youth while her ponytail symbolizes her ascent into adulthood. Likewise, she is gathering saffron from crocus flowers which was a commonly used herb to help alleviate menstrual cramps. The lines are very fluid and nonrigid, presenting a free flowing effect. The image is soft and is meant to represent the soft touch of sanctity of the process being depicted.

The Leaping Bull from the Palace at Knossos, 1450-1400 BCE, depicts the extremely dangerous ritual of bull-leaping. It possibly represents a symbol of divinity as the bull reoccuringly depicts, a literal demonstration of athletic ability, or a religious ritual; we aren’t entirely sure. While the process is perilous, the fresco here demonstrates a similar style to the girl gathering crocus flowers. The bull is painted with fluid lines and soft, natural colors. The image is also very stylized and could very well be metaphorical.

It seems there is a recurring motif of ascending to some higher level of existence, or achieving something that was unachievable before. Both frescos embody a sense of accomplishment and growth, and it’s a very fluid ascent.

This image of Menkaure and his queen sends a very clear message. Menkaure is an athletic man of good stature, he has an artificial beard symbolizing his kingship, and his pose is balanced, with one foot extending in a step- probably representing progress or forward movement. The woman by his side is near perfection as well; she has good posture and is beautiful in a traditional sense. She holds Menkaure in a “loving embrace,” standing closely by his side. She mimics his stepping action which is unusual because the common position for statues of women during the time period held the feet together. This copying most likely represents her devotion to him as a husband as well as a ruler.

This painted limestone portrait of Akhenaten and His Family has two similar people– a man of power and his female companion– but they are presented in an entirely different light. The relief sculpture is technically an official portrait, and portrays family life. Unlike the statue, this sculpture depicts Akhenaten and his wife, as well as his children, in a much more relaxed, domestic manner. Aten, being represented by the sun-like circle at the head of the image, is blessing the mother and father with the “breath of life,” depicted by the rays extending down to their mouths and nostrils. The scene is filled with love and happiness, a very relaxed state of living. The “king” s not a king in this seen, but rather a devoted father next to a devoted mother.

The difference in the pictures seems to be the image a ruler must exude in one facet of his life, and the image he wishes imbody in all facets. He must be powerful, confident, and stoic. But he cannot be any of these things if he does not have a loving, firm foundation to plant his feet into. Albeit cheesy, but true, even in Ancient Egypt.

The Statuettes of Worshippers from Eshnunna, 2700 BCE, are designed very specifically, and with intent. The wide eyes and the upturned head are always watching and waiting for the Gods; the folded hands constantly in a state of prayer. The hands are small, possibly representing a lack of power or ability, and the clothing is simple, representing humility and lowliness in comparison to the gods. Let’s also consider the large legs and feet, most likely representing a firm foundation, an intent to stand still; a stoic nature of dedication. The statuettes were designed to hold the place of human beings while they went about their lives, providing a specific purpose.

If we compare the statue of Gudea, we come across some of the same features, and some contrasting ones as well. For example the feet are large and firmly planted, while the stone is made of diorite, again, probably indicating a stoic attitude and intention. His garments, however, are covered in inscriptions of some sort, providing him more detail and importance. His hands are large, unlike the worshipper, probably placing emphasis on his good deeds, such as rebuilding the destroyed temples. Like Malraux asserts in his book The Metamorphosis of the Gods,  the ziggurat served no architectural purpose, similar to the statuettes; however, they did have more practical purposes in general.

The most interesting piece of this concept, statues and sculptures representing Gods, humans, and better humans (for lack of a better term), all originate somewhere. In other words, someone has to make them, there has to be an artist. By creating these figures, the ziggurat specifically, the artist becomes a worshipper, god, and temple all at once. (Malraux) He gave his time and energy to create one of these objects; identifying with it, giving his service to it, and respecting it as a work of art, or a work of functionality. Whether creating a worshipper, a ruler, or a god, the artist gives himself over to these kinds of pieces, providing a service just as much as a product.

The Woman from Wilendorf is not the kind of woman that our culture would see as ideal. Coming from about 24,000 BCE, this was most likely a generic representation, focusing less on image and more on fertility, as you can see from the shape of the possibly pregnant stomach, the detail of genitalia, and the large breasts. She is about 11 centimeters tall and meant to be held on one’s hand, so she was not meant to be placed on display or observed by a group of people as artwork–the way we think of it–usually is today. She was painted with red ochre, possibly indicating the importance of menstruation and survival based on reproduction. The Woman was originally called a “Venus,” as she was created slightly after the Aurignacian Period. The Venuses were objects of sexuality, so she was stripped of that title, seeing as she is a representation or fertility rather than sex. Another thing to note here is her posture. she is straight up, shoulders back, head forward (for as much as we can tell). Her arms rest on top of her breasts and she in not covering herself. It is a very stoic image of a woman compared to the Venuses. However it is just as bold in comparison to prehistoric representations of the male gender.

The Lion-human coming from Hohlentstein-stadel, Germany, 30,000 -25,000 BCE, is possibly a representation of an actual lion with human-like posture, or a man with the decorations of an animal preparing for a hunt. Seeing it as a man could indicate exactly how fierce, capable, and powerful the male gender was seen to be. Like the Woman above, there is also a small focus and detail with genitalia. According to Robert Myron’s Prehistoric Art, this sculpture was created just in after the Aurignacian Period and the Magdalenian period; the former focused on the Venus, and the latter, on the animal, and the “human image is rare in Magdalenian art.” This piece of artwork was clearly representing dominance, either of the male sex of animals in general, or the human male, and his ability to conquer other animals. In contrast to the Woman of Wilendorf, the man has a tensed posture, while she was subtly confidant. The man looks prepared and on guard, arms away from his body and shoulder slightly forward as if ready to fight. He also has several notches on his arm which could indicate wounds from “battle.” Both the male and the female have stoic confidence, but in two very different ways; one is ready for childbirth (basically) and the other is ready for the hunt. But let’s be honest, they both require the same amount of strength and stamina.

Works Cited

Myron, Robert. Prehistoric Art. New York: Pitman Pub., 1964. Print.

Help Received: Prehistoric Art; Wikipedia–>dates