Personally (and, of course, I am not infallible), I wouldn't give 2 cents for any one of them. If they are from an old Asian
collection, collected say c. 1900 or c. 1920, that is plenty old enough to be common
fakes and geared to modern taste. The first one seems to me to lay it on thickest of all, viz., too emphatically "prehistoric" to be old (genuine). The "Cycladic" one is pitiful, even among those most pitiful and plentiful
fakes. That is my opinion.
Pat L.
Probably (to address your other question):
the 1st is meant to suggest Neolithic notions of
fertility divinities
the 2nd is meant to be associated with cosmic, or supposedly cosmic,
lion symbolsthe 3rd is meant to evoke western notions of Indian, e.g. Chola, bronzes of Parvati or another, sexier devi
the 4th is "inspired" by Hallstatt bronzes, or perhaps Villanovan ones, and is as phony as that
Chinese re-creation of the village of Hallstatt
and
the 5th is an insult to Cycladic marble figures, like the ones in the NAM in
Athens (many others, out of private
collections, inspired by the Cahiers d'Art volume, are
high grade fakes but often
fakes nonetheless)
In short, all of them look like stuff made to prey upon ill-informed western ideas of "romantic" primitivism.
Author