Read on Twitter
Oh JFC! Yippeeyay, another terrible take on 'Venus' figurines by non-specialists. I can't emphasize how bad this study is in terms of terminology, sample selection, methods, data presentation and lit review. (THREAD!) https://phys.org/news/2020-12-theory-venus-figurines.html
Terminology: calling these things Venus figurines is a misnomer that ignores the wide range of variability encompassed in Upper Paleolithic figurines https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aman.12121
Data selection: an arbitrarily selected subset of figurines illustrated on a personal website. Total sample size = 41 for a period covering 24k years. That's 1.7 figurine *per millennium* for all of Eurasia. By only selecting 'fatter' figurines, they also bias their outcome.
Data presentation: no raw data on the measurements taken from online photographs, no references for the actual age of the figurines or debates around them.
Methods: why only these measurements (waist2shoulder, waist2hip)? Why no actual measurements of distances between sites and glaciers/temperature at occupation?
Literature review: already mentioned the paper by @NowellApril and Melanie Chang, but they also misrepresent the paper by Soffer et al. who use figurines to study UP clothing, whereas these guys say they were almost all naked.
General annoying things: perpetuates idea that cold conditions were necessarily bad for humans, ages given in ky BP with no discussion of uncertainties, use "the Ice Age" as a scientific term (it ain't).
I know for a fact that there are very competent Paleolithic archaeologist in the CU system, why were none asked to co-author or provide context (an undergrad in anthro doesn't cut it).
In summary, oh to have the confidence of MDs publishing outside their field.
