Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic 'Venus11 Figurines and Archeological Mythology
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic
'Venus11 Figurines and Archeological
Mythology
Sarah M. Nelson
University of Denver
ABSTRACT
Meanings attributed to Upper Paleolithic female figurines in the past have been based on the
assumption that they are all alike in important ways. Attention is called here to the diversity of the
figurines, and possible alternative interpretations.
Among the earliest depictions of human to deconstruct some texts in a narrower
beings, dating back to perhaps 30,000 years sense, using the example of the Venus
ago, are small figurines of nude females, figurines to demonstrate that introductory
which are found across a broad belt in textbooks of archeology and physical
Europe from the Pyrenees in southern anthropology produce gender metaphors
France to the Don river in the USSR, with which, by ignoring much of the scholarship
outliers in Siberia. Every anthropologist is on the figurines, reaffirm the folk model of
familiar with these Upper Paleolithic "Venus" gender preferred by our culture.
figurines. They are used to titillate freshman
classes, and photographs or drawings, FIGURINE DESCRIPTIONS
especially of the figurines from Willendorf
and Dolni Vestoni e, routinely enliven The figurines themselves have only
introductory textbooks. gender in common. They are diverse in
Current trends in literary criticism lean shape, in pose, in the somatic details
toward deconstmction of "texts," in which depicted, and in ornamentation (Soffer 1988,
both words and situations may serve as the Fleury 1926, Abramova 1967, Luquet 1926,
text for analysis. In this chapter I would like Delporte 1979). They seem to represent
1112 Sarah M. Nelson
differences in age as well (Rice 1981). Yet intended to refer to hindquarters in general
the textbooks tend to represent the figurines in the other cases, or whether one set of
as all the same, and then to leap from this authors indeed has protruding buttocks in
purported sameness to a supposed function mind (i.e., steatopygia), and the other really
for all figurines over their 3000 mile and means broad hips (i.e., steatomeria) (Boule
perhaps 10,000 year spread (Soffer [1988], and Valois 1957:318). In one confusing case,
although Gamble [1986, 1987] asserts that an illustration of Willendorf, without a trace
most figurines fall within a 2000 year range). of steatopygia but with undoubted
We need to explore this phenomenon of steatomeria, is pictured side by side with a
perceiving sameness in the diverse figurines, Khoi-San woman, of whom the reverse is
and ask why it occurs. clearly the case - that is, protruding buttocks
The texts our students read describe the without broad hips (Campbell 1988:508).
figurines and frequently ascribe a function to The assertion that pregnancy is depicted
them. There is little indication in the in the figurines occurs in the textbook sample
bibliographies that the authors of the texts three times, and one additional author points
have read any primary sources about the out the exaggerated "belly," allowing him the
figurines, or that they are conversant with the satisfying alliteration of "breasts, belly, and
rich literature which explores the variation in buttocks." Three of the authors describe the
both the figurines themselves and the figurines as fat. The only author to refrain
possible meanings and functions of the from asserting or implying fatness does not
figurines. Rather, it seems that a kind of describe the figurines at all, but contents
folklore is repeated, a folklore of the himself with an illustration of Willendorf
anthropology profession, too well known to (Pfeiffer 1985:203). Reading these
require documentation. descriptions, one would suppose that the
The textbooks utilized in this study Willendorf statuette, easily the most familiar,
represent an unsystematic nonrandom sample was typical or normal or modal. Instead, it is
- all that happen to be on my bookshelves, one of the least stylized and the most obese -
supplemented with those of my colleagues. referred to in another context with
Of 20 introduction to archeology or admiration as representing "resplendent
archeology and physical anthropology endomorphy" (Beller 1977:78).
textbooks thus examined, eight concentrate The generalizations in the textbooks do
on methodology and do not mention the some violence to the facts. Few of the
figurines, while the other twelve contain statuettes represent gross obesity, and some
cursory remarks on one to three pages. It is are quite slender (Fig. 1). Even the first
these twelve texts which constitute the study figurines found in the 1890s were classified
sample. by Piette into svelte and obese classes
Table 1 shows the distribution of what (Delporte 1979:73). Half a century ago
is written regarding the physical Passemard (1938) examined all the then-
characteristics of the figurines. Six of the known figurines to see whether they were
textbooks mention exaggerated sexual steatopygous, a description quite popular at
characteristics as a prominent feature, that time, and came to the conclusion that
whether or not they specify which traits are most were not. Saccasyn della Santa (1947:9-
meant. The most common feature to be 13) reviewed the literature on the figurines
singled out is the breasts, described as again, and also concluded that they were not
"large," "generous," or "pendulous." All but meant to represent steatopygia.
one of the texts characterize the figurines as An unpublished statistical study of the
having either exaggerated sexual variation in body shapes made 22
characteristics or large breasts, and four measurements on each figurine for which
include both. Buttocks are mentioned five both frontal and profile photographs could
times, once described as "protruding," while be found - 24 measurable figurines in all.
hips, once with the adjective "broad," are The statuettes sorted into distinct groups of
specified three times. Only one author 10 obese (wide hips and thick body), 3
mentions both, showing that he makes a steatopygous (protruding buttocks), and 11
distinction between hips and buttocks. We normal (Nelson n.d.). Another study shows
are left to guess whether these terms are that only 39 percent of these figurines couldPowers of Observation 13
TABLE 1
Description of Figurines
Author Sexual Abdomen Breast Buttocks Hips Pregnant Fat
Barnouw x
(1978)
Campbell
(1988)
Chard
(1975)
Clark (thighs)
(1977)
Eddy x
(1984)
Fagan x
(1986)
Hester
& Grady
(1982)
Jurmain et al. x
(1981)
Pfeiffer (stylized)
(1985)
Poirier
(1987)
Smith
(1976)
Wenke
(1984)14 Sarah M. Nelson
possibly represent pregnancy, slightly over high correlation between ratings. The
half (55 percent) have pendulous breasts, 45 distribution of the figurines in these age
percent have broad hips, and 13 percent have categories corresponds to the expected age
protruding buttocks. Twenty-two percent pyramid for foraging societies.
have none of these characteristics, (Nelson Failure to acknowledge the variability of
and Bibb n.d.). Bodyshapes depicted in the the figurines makes it easier to produce
figurines have been divided into three or four sweeping generalizations about their
categories by intuitive studies as well, such as probable meaning or function. This is
those by Fleury (1926), Abramova (1967), evident in the textbook interpretations. By far
and Luquet (1926). the most common function ascribed to the
Rice (1981) has suggested that this figurines is that of "fertility" (Table 2),
variability in body shape reflects different age specifically so designated in seven of the 12
groups, and has shown that different body texts, and called "procreation" and "maternity"
characteristics can be so interpreted, with a by one text each. This ascription is usually
FIGURE 1
Slender figurines from a: Petrokovi e, Czechoslovakia; b: Elisevitchi, USSR; and c: Sireul,
France.Powers of Observation 15
TABLE 2
Functions of Figurines
Author Fertility Goddess/Cult Erotic Artistic/Stylized
Barnouw X
(1978)
Campbell X
(1988)
Chard rejects
(1975)
Clark x(maternity)
(1977)
Eddy X
(1984)
Fagan X
(1986)
Hester X
& Grady
(1982)
Jurmain X
et al.
(1981)
Pfeiffer
(1985)
Poirier X
(1987)
Smith X
(1976)
Wenke
(1984)16 Sarah M. Nelson
not explained at all, or weakly expressed at suggests that "they may have cracked off in
best. For example, "It seems unlikely that the baking, or when the ancient ceramicist
Upper Paleolithic women actually looked like tossed aside a work that failed to please
that, but perhaps it was an ideal type or him" (Most of the figurines of course are
expressed a wish for fertility (Barnouw carved.) In case there is any doubt about the
1978:176). Apparently in conjunction with use of the specific rather than the generic
the fertility function is the idea of a "cult" or use of the term "man", Leroi-Gourhan
"Mother Goddess," since the five authors who (1967:90) makes it crystal clear that
use one or both of these expressions attach "prehistoric man" doesn't include females,
them to the fertility notion. Only one author speaking of "the first figurines representing
rejects fertility as an explanation, on the prehistoric man - or at least his wife."
grounds that hunters are not concerned with If the figurines are assumed to have
human fertility. Rather he explicitly suggests been made by men, then it follows that they
that the figurines are erotic: "Pleistocene were created for male purposes. Even when
pinup or centerfold girls" (Chard 1975:182). they were first discovered, the Abb6 Breuil
(1954, cited in Ucko and Rosenfeld 1973:119)
HIDDEN ASSUMPTIONS said they were for "pleasure to Paleolithic
man during his meals" (do we have a
The brief descriptions and euphemism here?). Berenguer (1973:52)
interpretations of the female figurines focuses on reproductivity: "we may deduce
contain and to some extent conceal man's obsessive need for women who would
unexamined assumptions about gender. bear him lots of children to offset the high
Among them are: that the figurines were mortality rate caused by the harsh living
made by men, that the figurines were made conditions." Von Konigswald worried about
for men, that nakedness is necessarily other possessions, "It certainly is an old
associated with eroticism, and that depiction problem: how could man protect his
of breasts is primarily sexual. property, mark a place as 'his home', 'his
Underlying the description of the living site' so that others would recognize
female figurines as erotic or reproductive is a and respect it, especially in a period where
masculist construction of the world, in which there were no houses, just abris and caves?"
females are assumed to exist primarily for He concludes that men made the "grotesque"
the use of males, sexually or reproductively. figurines to guard their property, and scare
The scholarly literature is replete with off intruders! Delporte (1979:308) muses
explicit examples of this worldview, which the more philosophically, "for [paleolithic men]
textbooks reflect. as for us ... the mother who gives and
A few quotations from the scholarly transmits life is also the woman who gives
literature will demonstrate that males are and shares pleasure: could the paleolithic
usually assumed to be the sculptors of the have been insensitive to this novel duality?"
figurines. The italics are mine throughout. [my translation]. Could the present be
"How did the artist's vision, which reflected insensitive to the fact that there were
the ideal of his time, see her? For as with paleolithic women as well as men? Are
man, we can never know what she really women to be denied their own sensitivity, or
looked like....so we have to make do with the indeed their own existence as sentient
version her companion, man, had of her" beings?
(Berenguer 1973:48). The possibility that it The fact that the figurines were
was her version appears not to have crossed unclothed, or scantily clothed, for several
Berenguer's mind. Although this mindset wear belts and other decorations (a fact that
focuses on males exclusively, it is not is noted only by Clark [1977:105] among our
confined to males only, as shown from this textbook sample), surely has been essential
quote from a woman, "He [the artist] desired to the interpretation of eroticism, in spite of
only to show the female erotically and as the the fact that there are many other possible
source of all abundance - in her he portrayed reasons for the depiction of nudity. For
not woman but fertility" (Hawkes 1964:27). example, people may have been usually
Referring to the not uncommon find of unclothed inside the cave or hut, so that
broken-off legs, Campbell (1982:410) nakedness was not a special condition. ThePowers of Observation 17
figurines could have been teaching devices little comment or excitement except for
for girls' puberty rites, as Marshack visiting tourists and perhaps a segment of the
(1972:283) has suggested. readership of National Geographic.
Nakedness frequently has different The "rod with breasts" is an interesting
connotations when men rather than women example of the extension of the underlying
are the sculptor's subject. For example, a attitude toward women that is revealed in
naked male torso from Harappa is shown some generalizations about the figurines.
under the heading "Figures of Authority," in Enigmatic carvings are declared to represent
The First Cities, a widely used book from the breasts, buttocks, or vulvae, reducing women
Time-Life series (Hamblin 1973:133). The to their "essentials" (Fig. 2). Especially the
text tells us: notion of the "vulvae" (some of which look
rather like molar teeth), "has become an idee
Although male figures rarely fixe and one of the most durable myths of
appear among sculptures dug up at prehistory" (Bahn 1986:99). The "rods" from
Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, the Dolni Vestonice could be as easily perceived
few that do all seem to represent as stylized male genitalia, but if they were so
men of importance. In the three described the eloquence would probably be
works reproduced here, there is a in a different vein. It is hard to imagine
common theme, however varied exchanging the genders in the quote by
the pieces themselves may be: Absolon above.
regality or godliness. Alternative explanations, based on
variability rather than generalizations, are not
As Conkey and Spector (1985:11) point out lacking in the scholarly literature. The
in another context, changing the rules of figurines have been argued to represent
interpretation according to sex will not reveal priests or ancestors or clan-mothers, to show
anything about prehistoric gender roles. women as actors with a ritual function
Rather it comforts us in supposing that (Klima 1962:204, Abramova 1967:83, Hancar
things have always been the same. 1940). These possibilities are not even
In spite of being naked, however, it hinted at in the texts, with one sole exception
would seem that the fat figurines have little (Campbell 1988:481).
sex appeal to modern male scholars. This has
called forth various explanations, ranging ARCHEOLOGICAL MYTHOLOGY
from assertions that they are stylized, to a
suggestion that you cannot tell what might What are the possible reasons for the
have turned on those prehistoric men (you selective reporting found in the textbooks?
can almost see the shrug and the wink), to a First, to be fair, is the summary nature of the
rejection of the erotic argument on the texts. Little space is given to the figurines,
grounds that the figurines are simply too and it is necessary to paint a broad picture
grotesque! In all of this discussion, passivity with a few strokes. But the selection of this
of women is assumed. particular way of viewing the Upper
It is deserving of some comment that Paleolithic figures as fat, as sexual, and as
breasts are equated with eroticism in the representing fertility, can be linked to our
textbooks, more by juxtaposition of words own cultural stereotypes and assumptions
than by explicit statements. Sometimes, about the nature of men, women, sexuality,
though, the equation is specified. There is and reproduction. I suggest that our own
one carving, referred to as the "rod with culture makes these generalizations seem so
breasts," which evoked the following paean: natural, so satisfying, that there is no reason
"This statuette shows us that the artist has to examine them. The "text" read into the
neglected all that did not interest him, figurines is ours.
stressing his sexual libido only where the Several archeologists have commented
breasts are concerned - a diluvial plastic on the problems of reading our unconscious
pornography." (Absolon 1949). Surely assumptions about the present into the past.
anthropologists of all people know that "History and prehistory constitute bodies of
exposed breasts are not at all uncommon in knowledge used to legitimize social policies
the warmer parts of the world, and cause and to validate social trajectories" (Moore18 Sarah M. Nelson
\
FIGURE 2
"Rod with breasts" from Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia.Powers of Observation 19
and Keene 1983:7). This tendency has been to note the unconscious nature of the
traced to the dominant paradigm in acceptance of cultural scripts. But that does
archeology: "Because of the logic of not make them less pernicious. Reinforcing
empiricist epistemology, theories rising on present cultural stereotypes by projecting
empiricist foundations potentially serve only them into the past allows whole generations
to recreate in the past the dominant cultural of students to believe that our present gender
ideologies of the present" (Saitta 1983:303). constructs are eternal and unchanging.
We must recognize "the importance of taking Especially those who deal in prehistory need
into account the conceptions we hold of our to be alert to our cultural biases, and not
own society which inevitably mediate our imply that present gender roles are external
understanding of the past" (Miller and Tilley verities.
1984:2). Marvin Harris points out that "our
Recent research on gender roles in ordinary state of mind is always a profoundly
cultural anthropology proposes that "male mystified consciousness . . . To emerge from
and female, sex and reproduction, are myth and legend to mature consciousness we
cultural or symbolic constructs" (Ortner and need to compare the full range of past and
Whitehead 1981:6). These constructs are present cultures" (Harris 1974:5). The trick
often reflected in origin stories as "metaphors is to examine the past without the
for sexual identity" (Sanday 1981:56), which mystification.
Sanday calls "scripts." I am suggesting that I am not proposing that alternative
culturally constructed gender roles, and our explanations are necessarily better, only that
attitudes and beliefs about sex and the diversity of the figurines should be taken
reproduction, enter into the selectivity of into account. Maybe women made some of
reporting on the Upper Paleolithic figurines. the figurines. Maybe the figurines were used
The reading of the metaphors of the for women's purposes. Maybe it isn't
figurines derives from a masculist script. relevant whether men find them sexy or not.
I do not wish to impute either evil If an explanation feels intuitively right,
intentions or inferior scholarship to the perhaps that is the best reason to reexamine
authors of these textbooks. It is important it.
REFERENCES
Abramova, Z. A.
1967 Paleolithic Art in the USSR. Arctic Anthropology 4(2): 1-179.
Absolon, K.
1949 The Diluvial Anthropomorphic Statuettes and Drawings, Especially the So-called
Venus Statuettes Discovered in Moravia. Artibus Asiae 12:201-220.
Bahn, P.G.
1986 No Sex Please, We're Aurignacians. Rock Art Research 3(2):99-105.
Barnouw, V.
1978 Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. 3rd edition. Homewood, Illinois: The
Dorsey Press.
Beller, A.S.
1977 Fat and Thin. New York: Ferrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Berenguer, M.
1973 Prehistoric Man and His Art. M. Heron, trans. London: Souvenir Press.
Boule, M. and H. Vallois
1957 Fossil Man. New York: Dryden Press.20 Sarah M. Nelson
Campbell, B.G.
1982 Humankind Emerging. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
1988 Humankind Emerging. 5th ed. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Chard, C.
1975 Man in Prehistory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clark, G.
1977 World Prehistory in New Perspective. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Conkey, M. and J.Spector
1985 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory. Vol. 7. M.B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 1-38. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Delporte, H.
1979 rimage de la Femme dans VArt Prehistorique. Paris: Picard.
Eddy, F.W.
1984 Archaeology, A Cultural-Evolutionary Approach. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Fagan, B.
1986 People of the Earth, An Introduction to World History. 5th ed. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Fleury, C.
1926 Quelques Considerations sur la Pseudo-steatopygie des Venus Aurignaciennes.
Archives Suisses d'Anthropolo^.e Generale 11(1):137-141.
Gamble, C.
1986 The Paleolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1987 Interaction and Alliance in Palaeolithic Society, Man (N.S.) 17:92-107.
Hamblin, D J .
1973 The First Cities. New York: Time-Life Books.
Hancar, F.
1940 Problem der Venus Statuetten im Eurasiatischen Jung-Palaolithikum.
Praehistorische Zeitschrift 30-31.
Harris, M.
1974 Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture. New York: Random House.
Hawkes, J.
1964 The Achievements of Paleolithic Man. In Man Before History. C. Gabel, ed. Pp.21-
35. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hester, J J . and J. Grady
1982 Introduction to Archaeology, 2nd edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jurmain, R., H. Nelson, H. Kurashina, and W. Turnbaugh
1981 Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. St. Paul: West Publishing
Co.Powers of Observation 21
Klima, B.
1962 The First Ground-Plan of an Upper Paleolithic Loess Settlement in Middle Europe
and its Meaning. In Courses Toward Urban Life. R. Braidwood and G. Willey, eds.
Pp. 193-210. Chicago: Aldine.
Koenigswald, G.H.R. von
1972 Early Homo sapiens as an Artist: the Meaning of Paleolithic Art. In The Origin of
Homo sapiens, Ecology and Conservation, Vol. 3. F. Bordes, ed. Pp. 133-139.
Proceedings of the Paris Symposium 1969.
Laurent, P.
1965 Heureuse Prehistoire. Perigeux: Pierre Fanlac.
Leroi-Gourhan, Andr6
1967 Treasures of Prehistoric Art. Translated by N. Guterman. New York: Henry N.
Abrams.
Luquet, G.H.
1926 YArt et la Religion des Hommes Fossiles. Paris: Masson et Cie.
Marshack, A.
1972 The Roots of Civilization. New York: McGraw Hill.
Miller, D. and A. Tilley
1984 Ideology, Power and Prehistory: An Introduction. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory.
Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, eds. Pp. 1-15. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Moore, J A , and A.S. Keene
1983. Archaeology and the Law of the Hammer. In Archaeological Hammers and
Theories. J A . Moore and A.S. Keene, eds. Pp. 3-13. New York: Academic Press.
Nelson, S.M.
n.d. "Venus" Figurines as Evidence of Sedentism in the Upper Paleolithic. (On file,
Department of Anthropology, University of Denver.)
Nelson, S.M., and L. Bibb
n.d. Notes and Statistics on Venus Figurines. (On file, Department of Anthropology,
University of Denver.)
Ortner, S.B., and H. Whitehead, eds.
1981 Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Passemard, L.
1938 Les Statuettes Feminines Paliolithiques Dites Venus. St. Nimes: Libraire Teissier.
Pfeiffer, J.
1985 The Emergence of Humankind. 4th ed. New York: Harper and Row.
Poirier, F.E.
1987 Understanding Human Evolution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.22 Sarah M. Nelson
Rice, P.C.
1981 Prehistoric Venuses: Symbols of Motherhood or Womanhood? Journal of
Anthropological Research 37(4):402-416.
Saccasyn Delia Santa, E.
1947 Les Figures Humaines du PaUolithique Superior Eurasiatique. Paris: Amberes.
Saitta, D J .
1982 The Poverty of Philosophy in Archaeology. In Archaeological Hammers and
Theories. James A. Moore and Arthur S. Keene, eds. Pp. 299-304. New York:
Academic Press.
Sanday, P.R.
1981 Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, J.W.
1976 Foundations of Archaeology. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press.
Soffer, O.
1988 Upper Paleolithic Connubia, Refugia and the Archaeological Record for Eastern
Europe. In Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives. O. Soffer, ed. Pp. 333-
348. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.
Ucko P J., and A. Rosenfeld
1973 Palaeolithic Cave Art. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wenke, R.
1984 Patterns in Prehistory, Humankind's First Three Million Years. 2nd ed. New York:
Oxford University Press.You can also read
