 |
Master Honore, Moses Receiving the Law and His Reaction to the Golden Calf
From Somme le roi by Frere Laurent
French (Paris), c. 1295
London, British Library
MS Additional 54180, fol. 5v |
“
The LORD said: Here is the
covenant I will make. Before all your people I will perform marvels never
before done in any nation anywhere on earth, so that all the people among
whom you live may see the work of the LORD. Awe-inspiring are the deeds I will
perform with you! As
for you, observe what I am commanding you today.
See, I am about to drive out before you
the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Take
care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land that you are to
enter; lest they become a snare among you. Tear down their altars; smash their sacred
stones, and cut down their asherahs.
You shall not bow down to any other god, for
the LORD —“Jealous” his name — is a jealous God. Do not make a covenant with the inhabitants
of the land; else, when they prostitute themselves with their gods and
sacrifice to them, one of them may invite you and you may partake of the
sacrifice. And when you take their
daughters as wives for your sons, and their daughters prostitute themselves
with their gods, they will make your sons do the same.
You shall not make for yourselves molten gods.”
Exodus 34:10-17
As an investigator of
Christian, and specifically Catholic, iconography, I have been very interested
in the controversy that erupted over the native figures that were given such
prominence at the recently concluded synod on the Amazon at the Vatican.
There seems to be considerable confusion
about whether they were images of a “pagan goddess” or merely “symbols of
life”.
What really astonished me,
however, was that no one, on either side of the controversy, nor any of the
media reporting on the controversy, seems to have thought to ask for some
clarification from the people who study such things, that is from
anthropologists, ethnographers and/or art historians.
People who deal in the material artifacts of
a variety of cultures might have been thought to be able to provide some
insight into their identity and how they fit into the history of images.
But, NO ONE
ASKED.
So, I thought I’d add my two
cents from the perspective of an art historian, especially of one interested in
Christian iconography.
 |
| The initial appearance of the Pachamama figures was at a tree-planting ceremony in the Vatican Gardens on October 4, 2019. Pope Francis appeared to be a bit taken aback by the entire event, as he did not read his prepared remarks, but opted instead for a recitation of the Lord's Prayer. |
First off, I have to say that when I first saw the two that
were included in the tree planting ceremony at the Vatican Gardens on October
4, I was a bit shocked.
What was
shocking was not specifically the nudity of the two identical statuettes, but
their particular pose and the manner in which the proportions were presented.
They reminded me of some images from Art
History 101, the elementary introduction to art history that begins with the
productions of the Stone Age.
So, I did
a little investigating.
One of the noticeable things about art history, when
considered on a worldwide scale and across the centuries, is that it appears
that nearly all cultures begin their specific development at about the same
point, though not necessarily at the same point in time. Some cultures then change fairly rapidly,
while others remain static for hundreds, even thousands of years, as was the
case in ancient Egypt, for instance.
This depends very much on their degree of control, as well as on their
degree of isolation, or of their integration into trading networks and on their
level of material prosperity. What may
appear primitive in one culture may be the height of contemporaneity in
another.
That said, one of the earliest forms of figural art which
seems to appear everywhere is sculpture.
Indeed, sculpture may be the earliest form, as we have some small
sculptures that predate the earliest known paintings by thousands of
years. And the early sculptures often
have human figural themes. No one can
say for certain what those who made these figures intended in their making, but
the resemblances are striking.
Of course, one must acknowledge and keep in mind the fact that
not all early sculpture may have survived.
Only those figures made of stone have the most likely level of
survivability, followed by ceramic and metal figures. However, ceramic already presupposes a level
of sophistication, in that the ability to create ceramics presupposes having
learned the effects of high temperature fire on objects made of clays. The ability to extract and to work metals goes
a step further. But ceramics may be
broken to small bits and metals are often melted down to create new objects, so
both of these kinds of objects are less likely to survive than stone. Objects made of wood or other vegetable
material are least likely to survive except under certain specific
conditions. Presumably, no one began
sculpting in stone immediately. There
was probably a long period of experimentation during which sculpture was
created in easily malleable materials, which didn’t survive. Therefore, our knowledge of the remote past
may be skewed somewhat by what is available to us and may change if more items
are uncovered.
Bearing all this in mind, one can begin to approach the
question of how to classify the native figures used at the Synod.
Among the predominant characteristics of early human figures
which may have been used as symbols of fertility or even worshiped as
fertility goddesses are that they all place an extraordinary emphasis on the
reproductive organs. That is, interest
is directed specifically the abdomen, thighs and breasts in female figures and
to the penis in male figures, with almost no emphasis on the head and with
virtually none existent arms/hands or legs/feet.
 |
| One of the five Pachamama figures that were on display in the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina. |
These characteristics are found in the very earliest object
of human sculpture we currently know of.
This is a small female figure found in 1908 near the Austrian town of
Willendorf and factitiously nicknamed “The Venus of Willendorf”. Her abdomen and breasts are enormous. Her arms and feet are non-existent and her
face is missing. Instead, her head has a
decoration that may represent coiled braids or some kind of cap above a blank
space. She is made of limestone, with a
coating of red ochre pigment. Her age
has been estimated as approximately 26,000 – 28,000 BC, well within the
parameters of the last Ice Age.1 She is,
therefore, in the neighborhood of 30,000 years old! This age makes her by far the oldest artistic
expression by humans that we know of.
Further, it has been determined that the limestone she is made of is not
local to the area in which she was found, which makes her evidence for either
migration (perhaps as the ice receded) or for an early trading network.
 |
Venus of Willendorf
Paleolithic, c. 28,000 BC
Vienna, Naturhistorishes Museum |
How she may have been used is not known. She doesn’t seem too
well adapted as a practical item for daily use, so she must have had some symbolic
function. She may have had some
ceremonial function in religion, to ask for the conception of a child, for
instance. She can fit in your hand, so
she may have been used as a charm to assist a woman in labor. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that she
and her many descendants have been classified as fertility “goddesses”.
 |
| Side views of the "Venus of Willendorf" |
Little about such figures changed over time and across
cultures.
If made of suitable substances,
they can be found in the remains of all kinds of societies across the world.
They have been found in locations as varied as
Europe, the Middle East, the Levant, North, South and Central America, the
Greek Islands and Africa.
And that’s
only the results of a fairly short search of art museums.
It is likely that many more can be found in
museums of natural history or in anthropological and ethnographic
collections.
 |
Female Figure
Near Eastern, Anatolian Neolithic Period (Modern Turkey), c. 6000–5500 B.C.
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts |
 |
Female Figure
Mesopotamia or Syria, c. 5600-5000 BC
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Neolithic Female Figure
Greek, c. 6th-5th Millennium BC
Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum |
 |
Female Figure
Iran, c. 5,000 BC to 9th Century AD
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Female Figure
Cycladic, Final Neolithic Period, 4500-4000 BC
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Glazed Naked Woman
Egyptian, Middle Kingdom, c. 2033-1710 BC
Paris, Musée du Louvre |
 |
Female Idol
Susa (Iran), 3rd Millennium BC
Paris, Musée du Louvre |
 |
Kneeling Woman, Middle Bronze Age Amulet
Byblos, Syria, 2000-1600 BC
Paris, Musée du Louvre |
 |
Ceramic Female Figure
The Levant, Middle Bronze Age, Early 2nd Millennium BC
New York, Metropoliltan Museum of Art |
 |
Female Figrure
Egyptian, Middle Kingdom, 12th Dynasty, c. 1950-1885 BC
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art
|
 |
Female Figure
Iran, Middle Elamite, c. 1500-1100 BC_
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Female Idol
Cyrus, Late Bronze Age (1230-1050 BC)
Paris, Musée du Louvre |
 |
Female Figure
Mediterranean, c. 1070-712 BC
Marseille, Musée d'Archéologie Méditerranéenne |
 |
Fertility Goddess
Northwestern Iran, Iron Age II, c. Early First Millennium BC
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Lime Flask in the shape of a Woman
Colombian, Cauca Valley, c. 500 BC-700 AD
London, British Museum |
 |
Standing Female Deity
North Indian, 3rd-2nd Century BC
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Isis-Aphrodite
Egyptian, Roman Period, c. Second Century AD
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art
|
 |
Four Kneeling Female Figures
Mexican (Jalisco), 2nd Century AD
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Kneeling Woman
Mexican, c. 2nd-4th Century
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art
|
 |
Female Deity
India (Madhya Pradesh), 8th-9th Century AD
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Kneeling Female Deity
Cambodian, 12th Century AD
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Goddess of Water and Fertility
Mexican (Aztec) , 15th - Early 16th Century
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Kneeling Female Deity
Mexican (Aztec), c. 15th-Early 16th Century AD
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Seated Female Figure
Mali (Bamana Peoples), 15th-20th Century
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Female Figure
Guinea (Baga Peoples), 19th-20th Century
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Maternity Figure
Nigerian (Azume), 20th Century
London, British Museum |
The so-called “Pachamama” figures that have been at the
heart of the controversy during the Synod share many points with these
images.
It was rather surprising to see
that they appear to have been mass produced, as five of them were removed from
the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they were continuously on
display, and thrown into the Tiber by two men in the early hours of Monday,
October 21 (to be recovered and reappear a few days later).
One wonders for what purpose so many were
prepared and, even more, about how many more there are
,
questions which do not seem to have been asked or answered. Nonetheless, they share the same kind of
emphasis on the reproductive organs; the nudity; the de-emphasis on heads,
hands and feet; even the kneeling pose with many of the historic fertility
figures.
 |
| Photo of at least two of the five figures as placed in front of an altar at Santa Maria in Traspontina, near a copy of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe (the second image is in the front left corner of this picture. Also on the mat, which appears to represent the Amazon region are other items, such as images of birds and snakes, a pipe and a model boat, which may be regarded as references to the wildlife of the region. |
Initially, it was asserted by some spokesmen at the Vatican
Synod that the initial exposure of two figures, facing each other, at the tree-planting
ceremony in the Vatican Gardens, was actually an image of the Visitation.
 |
| Another view of the tree planting ceremony, showing the same "Amazon region blanket" with the display which first drew attention to these problemmatic figures. |
The Visitation is the Virgin Mary’s visit to her
cousin, Elizabeth, who was pregnant with Saint John the Baptist, almost
immediately after the Annunciation, as Jesus began his development within
her.
This event is honored in the Rosary
as the Second Joyful Mystery.
However,
there is already an established iconography for this event, which I covered in
several postings.
Most closely related
would be the posting called
“Visible Babies” which shows both fetuses within
their mothers’ bodies.
However, the
differences are more striking then the similarities.
There is usually an age differential between
the Virgin Mary and her older cousin.
The babies are clearly delineated (unless obliterated as in one case)
and John is often shown in adoration of Jesus.
 |
Visitation
Austrian, 1210
Nauders (Austria), Chapel of St. Leonard |
 |
Attributed to Master Heinrich of Constance, visitation
German, c.1310-1320
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art |
 |
Antependium of the Visitation
Alsatian, c. 1410
Frankfurt-am-Main, Museum für Angewandte Kunst |
 |
Marx Weiss the Elder, Visitation
German, 1563
Ueberlingen, Church of Sankt Nikolaus |
 |
Bradi Barth, Visitation
Swiss, c. 2000
Copyright HERBRONNEN. vzw |
 |
James B. Janknegt, Vistation
American, 2007
Copyright James Janknegt |
There is a distorted representation of something delineated within the
red oval (representing the uterus) of the Amazon figure, but it is not
identifiable as a specific person of any sex or age.
With all these considerations in mind I think it is safe to
say that this object was most likely a representation of an indigenous pagan
fertility/childbirth goddess than it was anything else.
Therefore, it is somewhat disingenuous to say
that it was placed in a church “without idolatrous intent” after having been
the subject of rather obvious signs of full worship (such as a circle of people
on their knees with their foreheads touching the ground) at the tree planting
ceremony in the Vatican Gardens.
 |
| Obeisance being made to the figures during the tree planting ceremony in the Vatican Gardens. |
Such
obeisance goes well beyond veneration and traditionally has been the clear sign
of the reverence addressed to God alone.
This special kind of reverence is known as latria.
2
At least one of the images was also included in something billed as an Amazonian Stations of the Cross along the Via della Conciliazione and in Saint Peter's Square, which in the photos I have seen at least seemed to make a model canoe containing it the center point of the procession, rather than the plain cross that was also carried. In addition, the statue made at least one appearance in a liturgy inside Saint Peter's Basilica.
 |
| Canoe containing one of the figures, along with other Amazonian materials being carried in Saint Peter's Basilica. |
I have seen it reported that there was an outcry about their
removal from the church in which they were displayed and that their disposal into
the Tiber was decried as being racist.
This is
presumably because these objects were representing a Native American
religion.
This is nonsense.
The action would have been the same if they
were statues of Venus/Aphrodite or Mars or Thor, that is, representatives of
indigenous pagan European religions
on display in a Roman church for veneration.
The Vatican museums are full of pagan
religious images, including many from non-European sources, and no one has tried to throw
any of them into the Tiber.
But, they
are not on display in the museums in order for them to be venerated.
Here are a couple of examples:
 |
Quetzalcoatl
Mexican (Aztec), c. 1360-1521
Vatican City, Vatican Museums, Ethnological Museum Anima Mundi |
 |
Mongol Female divinity Palden Lhamo
Mongol, From the Jehol Area, Late 19th-Early 20th Century
Vatican City, Vatican Museums, Ethnological Museum Anima Mundi |
It was the location and use of these images
that was upsetting to those who took action.
What would have been appropriate, had there been no other agenda in
action here, would have been for the synod organizers to present the image to
the Pope for inclusion in the Vatican Museum.
But, one senses that something else has been at work in the last month,
though in an arrogant and clumsy way. And that "something" is very like what the Lord warns about in the passage from Exodus with which I opened this essay.
M. Duffy, 2019
2.
For a reasonably
good description of the terms “latria”, “dulia” and “hyperdulia” which are used
to distinguish the different types of reverence shown to God (specifically for
the Persons of the Trinity and for the Eucharist) – latria; the Blessed Virgin
– hyperdulia; and the other saints and angels – dulia;
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latria However, this article is marred by
Wikipedia’s informal editing platform.
Someone has added the last three paragraphs regarding the differences
between Catholic and Methodist views of the Eucharist which are completely
irrelevant in the description of the words.
One may ask, why just Methodist views?
Why not Episcopalian, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian and other
denominational views?
Presumably the
person who added these paragraphs is a Methodist and that is all he or she
knows.
As always, Wikipedia should be
used with caution and some previous knowledge of the subject, if possible.
