Back to the list of research papers.

Modern Eyes on an Ancient World: Theories and Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Depictions of Females.

by Annique-Elise Goode

INTRODUCTION

There are two opposing idea regarding the nature of art: Plato declared art to be mere imitation of what one literally sees, while 19th century art theory considered it an expression of emotions (Bahn 1998: xxii). These two approaches, literal and symbolic, have been used, and in some cases, even combined, in scholarly attempts to interpret prehistoric human representations. Many interpretations have been made as to the meaning and function of Upper Paleolithic carvings, figurines and motifs representative (or said to be) of females. In my descriptive paper, I discussed prehistoric art in general and described the genres of female depictions that exist in prehistory. Here, I will present their literal and symbolic interpretations, both the mainstream and the more unusual or obscure.

The focus will be on Upper Paleolithic European depictions of females, due to the high number of representations found in that area and time period, and the amount of literature on that theme. The intent is not to prove one interpretation to be correct above all others. On the contrary, it is to present proposed ideas and analyze them to a two-fold conclusion, that 1) the very nature of the extraordinarily ancient artifacts and their creators renders conclusive interpretation virtually impossible and 2) the large number of interpretations already made are encouraging and should provoke further investigation to refine them or create new ideas. This is not a contradiction, as the impossibility of conclusively proving something should not prevent robust discussion and debate from provoking serious thought on the matter.

Prehistoric human figures are often discussed as a single phenomenon, despite the facts that they cover an immense time span (roughly 25,000 BC to 2,000 BC), and have many variations on a basic theme. Ehrenberg (1989:66) feels that they should not be interpreted as singular, for these reasons. The same tendency to homogenization is true of studies of prehistoric female depictions (Delporte 1993; Ehrenberg 1989; McDermott 1996). As Delporte (1993) points out, there is a question of whether Paleolithic art, and by extension, female representations, had one intention or function which was static over 20,000 years of the Upper Paleolithic or whether it was more fluid in nature. The fluidity model suggests that socio-economic change, diversity of style and technique, and the passage of time may have an affect on the intention and function of the artifacts.

This is an important point, as "universality" theories are based on the assumption that Paleolithic cultural evolution being so much slower than ours makes such uniformity possible (Delporte 1993). However, we cannot discount the fact that feminine depictions of the Upper Paleolithic have, between the Gravettian (23-18 000 BC) and Magdalenian (18 000 – 14 000 BC) periods and from various aspects, sufficient differences that make it difficult to accept a single explanation as applicable to all examples so far discovered (Delporte 1993).

Another issue that has emerged in interpretation is the often – quoted idea that there is a significant majority of female depictions over males and children (Bahn 1997; McDermott 1996; Rawson 1973). Ehrenberg (1989) objects to this position, cautioning that female Venus figurines, while a distinct group, should be considered as part of a much larger series of Paleolithic carved figures. She contends that while some of these figures are females, most have naturalistic rather than exaggerated proportions, and that in fact, most figures are sexless (1989: 68). Duhard (1993) follows suit, reasoning that, based on the assumption that Paleolithic artists portrayed men and women from real-life models around them, Paleolithic art should portray the actual diversity of their life, including physical, gender and age variations in human depictions. Duhard (1993) examined prehistoric human depictions of children, women at various ages and stages of reproductive life, and of men, and concluded that it is a mistake to think of obese women as being the general rule in prehistoric human depictions. He contends that there is in fact a wide variation of female representations: obese, slim, pregnant, short, thickset etc… I feel this is an important issue to bring up before presenting interpretations based on this assumption of dominance of female depictions in Paleolithic art.

Because they are the most prominent and theorized depictions of Paleolithic females studied, I will focus on so-called Venus figurines, described in detail in my first paper. They are interesting artifacts, having produced fierce and passionate debates about their meaning and function that created most of the interpretations to be presented. As Delporte (1993) mused, [trans.] "There is, in effect, a contradiction between the precariousness of the information and the exuberance of the literature!". Perhaps the reason for their interpretative interest to academia lies in their widespread and numerous discoveries across Europe, and their often greatly exaggerated sexual features that mark them as undeniably female, unlike some of their more vague "sisters".

Finally, there are several important questions that should be asked upon reviewing and interpreting prehistoric human figures: where and when were they made? In what contexts were they found? Do they represent women exclusively? Is there sufficient similarity in design and context to suggest the plausibility of a single explanation for all the figures found in Europe (Ehrenberg 1989: 66)? These questions need to be considered seriously, and all assumptions examined for validity before an interpretation can be fully formulated.

INTERPRETATIONS

Ethnographic references have been attempted and in fact, ethnographic comparison was a major source of explanation for Paleolithic art in the 19th and early 20th centuries (Delporte 1993). The possibility of using such ethnographic comparison of historic small-scale hunting/gathering societies in analyzing Paleolithic representations of females has been considered (Delporte 1993; Grand 1967; Rawson 1973). After all, people in small-scale societies do often have anthropomorphic representations, which may have analogies with those of the Paleolithic (Delporte 1993). This is a convenient approach, as the motivation for ethnographic representations are known and documented. However, the problem with this approach is that, despite any accuracy of ethnographic data (which is sometimes questionable), one cannot superimpose fairly recent human cultures onto a time, place and people 30,000 years ancient. The time gap and potential cultural differences are simply too great.

I will begin my presentation of interpretations with a look at theories of art as imitation, interpretations of 'vulvar' images, and other literal approaches. From there, I will move to symbolic interpretations, which yield a wider variety of theories ranging from "magic art" to ancestral representations. Finally, I will consider an important and prominent fusion of literal and symbolic approaches: female representations as images of sexuality and eroticism. I do not have preference for any one interpretation, and wish to emphasize my viewpoint that a multiplicity of interpretation is necessary to fit a variety of representations that do not form a homogenous model, and further, that there are as yet no methods to conclusively confirm or reject most interpretations at hand.

Literal Interpretations Kingsley Palmer once noted that "In studying prehistoric art only one thing is certain: nothing is certain!" (cited in Bahn 1998: 170). This is important to keep in mind when looking at literal interpretations. Simply because something is interpreted as being literally what it looks like (to the modern eye), does not render that interpretation conclusive. Still, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, to quote Freud, and there is merit to the notion that Paleolithic artists would depict objects, things and concepts as they are seen in real life.

This Platonic approach of art as imitation influenced one of the first academic opinions on prehistoric art. Piette (year not given; cited in Delporte 1993: 266) considered the statuettes actual portraits of Paleolithic women, and went so far as to divide Paleolithic women into two races, one adipose and the other svelte. From this and other similar notions came the hypothesis of female steatopygia, or over-large buttocks, as being significant. There were suggestions that the figurines were portraits of Paleolithic aesthetic ideals of women (Delporte 1993:266). Challenged by R.Verneau and L. Passemard, among others, both the "simple portraits" and steatopygia hypotheses were abandoned (Delporte 1993).

However, McDermott (1996) has revived the concept of Paleolithic female depictions as representations of real-life models. He proposed the non-mainstream and interesting idea of Upper Paleolithic female figurines being self-representations created by Paleolithic women of their visual perceptions of their own bodies. He reasons that visual distortions produced by looking down on one's own body could account for the exaggerated distortions of the figures, which Duhard (1993b; cited in McDermott 1996:234) concluded were deliberately created and not the result of the physical constraints of the material worked, as some argued.

McDermott (1996) attempted to prove his argument by creating photographic simulations of visual self-perceptions of modern females at various stages of their reproductive life, including pregnancy, and superimposing them onto the actual figurines from a similar perspective (i.e. looking down on one's chest and feet) in order to demonstrate similarity. His ideas were congratulated as original and intriguing, but colleagues were unconvinced of their validity (P. Bahn, J. Cook, H. Delporte, J.-P Duhard, A. Marshack; cited in a "comments" section of McDermott 1996: 248 – 275). There were several areas of criticism. The greatest was McDermott's assumption that only an immediate visual template based on self-perception could be used, in the absence of technological assistance (Bisson; cited in McDermott 1996: 249). It seems more realistic to use other community members as models, or one's visual memory of what human females look like. The difficulty of looking at one's body without mirrors seems overly impractical to be worth the effort.

Another sore point was his contention that all Paleolithic artists were female. The gender of Paleolithic artists has been considerably discussed, with the traditional assumption being that they were male (Bahn 1998). Others contend that they were female, as do McDermott (1996) and Lubell (1994), who suggests that women created these figures for members of their community. More cautious archaeologists berate both traditional and feminist theorists for overgeneralizations. As Bahn writes in his response to McDermott's essay (McDermott 1996: 248), it is as sexist to claim that all female images were made by women as it is to say they were all made by men. Furthermore, one cannot determine the gender of the creators of the Paleolithic images simply on the basis of content ("if they are female, the artist was female"). The fact remains that we cannot know their sex. To base an argument almost entirely on an assumption that cannot be proven is risky business, indeed. McDermott's theory has the value of being original, and his essay had the commendable effect of provoking a great deal of discussion and response. However, due to inherent assumptions and generalizations, it cannot be considered a major source of interpretation at this time. The so-called 'vulvar' images, reputed to be among the oldest known depictions of women (Lubell 1994), have generated a great deal of debate regarding their significance, meaning and even whether one should consider them vulvas at all (Bahn, 1998; Delporte 1993; Lubell 1994)!! There are, in many parts of the world, motifs with a variety of shapes (i.e. circular, oval, indented, 'hoofprint') that have been interpreted by many researchers as vulvas (Bahn 1998). These motifs were first named "pudendum muliebre" by Breuil, who began what Bahn (1998: 174) calls "an obsession with sexual interpretations". The identification of many motifs as being literal representations of female genitalia led to theories of an Ice Age preoccupation with sex (Bahn 1998; Delporte 1993).

In fact, Bahn accuses proponents of the "vulvar images" theory of engaging in circular argument: "the motifs are assumed to be vulvas, from which an obsession with sex is inferred, the evidence for which is the vulvas! (1998:174). Bahn (1998) points out that, if one considers the only definite examples to be those found in context and therefore unquestionably vulvas, vulvar images are actually quite hard to find in Ice Age art. He admits that there are ethnographic examples of motifs symbolizing vulvas that would not likely be interpreted as such without the documentation (1998: 175) but argues that this is further proof of the contentiousness of interpreting all such motifs as being vulvar in significance.

Delporte (1993) and others disagree with Bahn's somewhat sardonic approach, insisting that there are far more examples of vulvar motifs that he cares to admit, and that interpreting them as literal and symbolic representations of female genitalia does not signify an obsession with sex on the part of the researchers or artists as much as it does a potential concept of feminine mysticism in the Paleolithic mind (Delporte 1993; Lubell 1994; Rawson 1973). For myself, I am inclined to believe that there is merit to both camps' argument and that there will be instances when either one of them shall be correct. The variety of Paleolithic motif shapes and contexts make this highly likely.

In contrast with these somewhat complex and highly debated ideas, it was startling to find a rather simple, straightforward and mundane explanation suggested for some prehistoric figurines: their possible use as children's dolls (Ehrenberg 1989: 76). In many parts of the world today, figurines are indeed played with by children as dolls, and Ehrenberg (1989) argues that such an interpretation cannot be dismissed as potentially applicable to some prehistoric models. The reasons given are ethnographic comparisons, the use of cheap, accessible material such as clay, the presence of animal as well as human figurines, and the apparent carelessness with which some of the figurines were disposed of (Ehrenberg 1989: 76). There is no way to prove this theory, but it does provide a possibility, and is refreshingly straightforward without simplistic overgeneralization.

Symbolic Interpretations

I cautioned in my presentation of literal interpretations that nothing is certain. Here, again, I feel compelled to quote from Bahn (1998:221): "There are pitfalls in an excessively literal interpretation of ancient art, but there are far more in non-literal interpretations, which, at their worst, are mere wishful thinking or flights of fancy". When we step into the realm of the symbolic, where one thing can mean or represent something quite different, and ideas are even more difficult to prove, the road must be treaded cautiously and theories examined with care. Recall the questions for examination and interpretation of prehistoric human figurines: where and when were these artifacts made, and in what contexts were they found? It is not enough to look at what their physical dimensions and properties are – we must also look to their provenience, matrix and associated materials for additional clues to the artifacts' significance and meaning.

The most basic symbolic approach to prehistoric art involves the concept of 'magic'. From this mystical association comes varied interpretations of individual prehistoric animal or human figurines as gods, demons, spirits or ancestors (Bahn, 1998; Delporte 1993; Ehrenberg 1989; Grand 1967), symbols and tools of magic power. The concept of prehistoric art as magic art (Delporte 1993) began with ethnographic observations of small-scale societies possessing religious figures, totems or so-called 'fetishes', which led to the "pervasive idea" (McDermott, 1996: 233) that all prehistoric art was involved with hunting or fertility magic.

Earlier archaeologists spoke of "classic interpretations of prehistoric art" as being symbolic acts of ensuring successful hunts or the fecundity of women within the community (e.g. Grand 1967). More recent works also portray such artwork as the Venus of Laussel as female shamans who aid in the hunt (Delporte 1993: 269) or as tools of sympathetic magic to aid fertility (Ehrenberg 1989). Ehrenberg suggests this fertility symbolism may have had even greater importance in societies where the link between male impregnation and childbirth is not fully understood. This point has value, but I suspect it does not give Paleolithic people enough credit for intelligent observation. As well, Bahn (1998) points out that there is no direct evidence to link shamanism with Ice Age art beyond a simple assumption. Finally, the problem of using relatively recent ethnographic data to interpret such ancient works has been already discussed.

Despite these criticisms, McDermott (1996) concedes that with or without magical elements, the idea that primary sexual feature exaggerations signal a symbolic interest in fertility and fecundity has been very influential. As Passemard (1938; cited in Delporte 1993) states, true steatopygia is rarely represented, which strengthens the interpretation of symbolism in the enormous hips and breasts. Theories of fecundity, which do not always include magical elements, first occurred in the early 19th century. Piette, Boules, Hoernes and other researchers (years not given; cited in Delporte 1993: 267) used ethnographic comparison to suggest that women were depicted to celebrate their natural role as the generators of life and (perhaps) to magically make women pregnant by these representations (Passemard 1938; cited in Delporte 1993: 265). Modern theories of fecundity use the presence of gravid figures, representations of 'vulvas' and apparent implications of ritual (e.g. body posture, adornment, context) to demonstrate that femininity and maternity were functional themes of Paleolithic art (Delporte 1993). Gravidity is determined by breast development in addition to the presence of "gros ventres" (large stomachs) (Duhard 1993).

Delporte (1993) has suggested that a possible motivation for such Paleolithic emphasis on femininity and maternity may be high infant mortality, likely suffered in the harsh environment of the Ice Age. This, he reasons, would lead to an encouragement of and preoccupation with female pregnancy and childbirth in order to keep population levels relatively stable. The use of sympathetic magic tools to aid women's' fertility and celebrate their maternal role would then result in the creation of carved figurines.

While Upper Paleolithic depictions of women as images of fertility and fecundity are a popular theory, it does have its detractors. As mentioned before, gravidity cannot be inferred simply from obesity, which can occur due to old age or a combination of rich diet and excessive sedentism. Nor are all figurines, and rock petroglyphs and paintings, clearly defined. Even obviously female examples do not always possess markers of gravidity (see Duhard 1993). Again, we see a theory that may hold true for some female depictions, but as a generalized model for all Paleolithic female figurines, fails to satisfy. It would be better applied, in my opinion, as a subset of a more heterogeneously complex model.

P. Rice (1981; cited in Delporte 1993: 268), mindful of these issues, suggests that Venus figurines are indeed images of femininity, but not of maternity. Rice states that they represent women at different ages, with realistic, corresponding proportions. The motivation is given as an honouring of women's roles in society and an affirmation of women as sacred and mysterious. Interestingly, Rice (1981) makes the assumption that the artists were male.

Recently, there has been a movement towards searching for sacred motifs that were widespread in particular parts of the world (Bahn 1998: 248-249) resulting in what I term "universality theories". Attempts have been made to identify universal categories such as solar deities, fertility cults, the Earth Mother and the axis mundi (Bahn 1998). From this has emerged an approach to rock art as text, the symbols acting as a sort of universal code to be cracked. Transferring this theory to figurines, Delporte (1993: 253; 256 – 257) spoke of a unity of motivation and significance across prehistoric space and time. An example of universality theories is the interpretation of Venus figurines as symbolic representations of a universal Mother Goddess (Ehrenberg 1989: 73).

According to Ehrenberg (1989), most Paleolithic figurines show marked similarities, which strongly suggest a common meaning and linked social or religious tradition throughout Europe. She contends that the majority of these figurines are women, and their interpretation central to the theme of universal symbolism within Paleolithic figurines. Many researchers writing on the Venus figures have emphasized their sexual characteristics (particularly often-exaggerated breasts and buttocks) and the many incidents of apparent gravidity among them (Ehrenberg 1989). It has been suggested that a continent-wide Mother Goddess cult existed during Paleolithic times, and that the notable presence of sexualized female depictions represents universal symbolism of that cult (Ehrenberg 1989; McDermott 1996).

Ehrenberg, while supportive of a possible thematic symbolism in Paleolithic art, considers such a cult unlikely in Paleolithic European societies. She points out that this assumes far closer and more detailed contact between different groups than otherwise implied by links in other aspects of material culture (Ehrenberg 1989:73). As well, she notes that religions based on deities would be unusual in similar small-scale societies of today, as they typically centre on general spirits and forces rather than personified gods and goddesses. While the possibility remains that goddess figures may have been worshipped in Paleolithic times, it does not follow from this hypothesis that every figurine in prehistoric Europe must be interpreted this way. As well, the unresolved question of homogeneity in prehistoric human cultures, and the static or fluidic nature of their evolution has already been discussed (refer to pp. 1-2).

Sexuality and Eroticism: A Combined Approach

Since 1913, with H. Klaatsch's (Delporte 1993: 269) suggestion of an erotic ideal, there have been several attempts to explain female depictions in terms of sexuality and eroticism (Delporte 1993; Ehrenberg 1989; Lubell 1994; McDermott 1996). Except for rare exceptions such as the Mal'ta statuette, the majority of Paleolithic female representations are nude (Delporte 1993). This nudity has been questioned on several levels, as researchers ask if they are indicative of actual conditions, aesthetic values or serve as sexual stimulus. The resulting theory eschews a singularly literal or symbolic approach in favour of a combination of the two.

Some have interpreted the frequent nudity of female depictions, particularly of statuettes, as literal reflections of actual reality. They argue, using ethnological comparisons, that thermal regulation and the biological defenses of "certain human populations" (Jude, year not given; Delporte:269) allow them to dwell in colder climates without need for clothing. While I find this a rather preposterous claim, which attempts to equate modern-day climes with those of the Ice Age, I agree we should not discount literal expressions as potential bases upon which symbolic interpretations can be made.

An apparent fascination with the exaggerated features of Paleolithic female figurines has resulted in a host of ideas ranging from the aesthetic ideal of obese women to "paleoporn"(Delporte 1993; Duhard 1993; McDermott1996). S.Nelson (1990; cited in Delporte 1993: 270) presented a well-documented analysis concluding that nudity is associated with eroticism, and that erotically sexualized statuettes were made by men for men. This places women in a position of fulfilling male sexual and erotic desires. The assumption of male artistry was based on the reasoning that "the bulging volumes of [figurines] were made…and fondled by men because clearly no other group would have had such an interest in the female form" (Colling and Onians 1978:12-14; cited in McDermott 1996). Such androcentric views have been criticized by feminist scholars, who argue that the vulvar images and female statuettes were not created as pornography, but to serve spiritual needs (Ehrenberg 1989; Lubell 1994). Unfortunately, analyses of figurines in literal and symbolic sexual terms become controversial without solid methodological proof to back them. Potentially useful ideas in this combined approach do not as yet have well-constructed theories to support them. It is hope that this will change with time.

CONCLUSION

A pessimistic man once stated, [trans.] "We must admit that we know nothing, and will never know anything [about Venus statuettes]" (Passemard 1938; cited in Delporte 1993: 265). This view is echoed by Marshack (1972; cited in Lubelll 1994: 66), who said, "we know only that the range of [Paleolithic] female images and the many forms of presentation and use preclude any simple interpretations". The issue of change, continuity and meaning in Upper Paleolithic cultures cannot be readily resolved, and any interpretation must remain that: interpretation and theory only – for the time being, they cannot be proven, particularly when one ventures into the realm of the symbolic. Marshack does hint at a measure of optimism, however, and many of the interpretations discussed in this paper have aspects with potential for further study. Despite the present impossibility of proving theories on Paleolithic art, persistence in the continual creation and refinement of ideas is absolutely necessary. The creation of a well-structured complex model that draws from past theories and examines literal and symbolic meaning at multiple levels would be a promising step forward in the fascinating study of Upper Paleolithic representations of females.



REFERENCES

Bahn, Paul G.
1998 The Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art. Cambridge U. press: Cambridge.

Delporte, Henri
1993 Image de La Femme Dans L'art Prehistorique. 2nd edition (1st edition 1979). Picard: Paris. *Unfortunately, he does not include references for other works cited in his book.

Duhard, Jean-Pierre
1993a [Notes] Upper Palaeolithic Figures as a Reflection of Human Morphology and Social Organization. Antiquity 67: 83 – 91.

1993b Realisme de L'image Feminine Paleolithique (Cahiers du Quaterneaire 19). Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique: Paris.

Ehrenberg, Margaret
1989 Women in Prehistory. British Museum Publications: London.

Grand, P.M
1967 Prehistoric Art: Paleolithic Painting and Sculpture. New York Graphic Society: Greenwich.

Lubell, Winifred Milius
1994 The Metamorphosis of Baubo: Myths of Woman's Sexual Energy. Vanderbilt University Press: Nashville.

Marshack, Alexander
1972 The Roots of Civilisation: the cognitive beginnings of Man's first art, symbol, and notation. McGraw-Hill: NY.

McDermott, LeRoy
1996 Self-Representation in Upper Palaeolithic Female Figurines. Current Anthropology 37 (2): 227 – 275.

Nelson, S.M.
1990 Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic 'Venus' Figurines and archaeological mythology. Anthropological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 2:11-22. American Anthropological Association: Washington, DC.

Rawson, Philip
1973 Primitive Erotic Art. G.P. Putnam's Sons: New York.

Rice, P.C.
1981: Prehistoric Venuses: symbolic motherhood or womanhood? Journal of Archaeological Research 37: 402-14.