Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
Art is an experimental science
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.
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 symbols
the 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
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.