The University of Chicago Press Wenner-Gren Foundation For Anthropological Research

Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines
Author(s): LeRoy McDermott

Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 227-275
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744349 .
Accessed: 09/07/2013 17:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996
? I996 byThe Wenner-Gren Research.All rightsreserved
FoundationforAnthropological OOII-3204/96/3702-0003$2.50
The world's oldest survivingworks of artfashioned

afterthe human image appear in the archaeological
Self-Representation strataof the Upper Paleolithic in Europe,shortlyafter
Homo sapiens sapiens emergedonto the centerstage
in Upper Paleolithic of bioculturalevolution. Questions about theirmean-

ing and significancebegan with Piette's (i895) and
Reinach's (i898) earlydescriptionsof findsfromthe
Female Figurines1 rock sheltersand caves of southernFranceand north-
ern Italy. Since these pioneeringefforts, severalhun-
dredadditionalimages have been identifiedfromthe
EuropeanUpper Paleolithic,most notablyfrommod-
by LeRoy McDermott ern France,Italy,Germany,Austria,the Czech Repub-
lic, Slovakia, and the Commonwealthof Independent
States. The rich possibilitiesraised by a centuryof
comparativeand interpretivestudyhave yet to gener-
ate a consensus about why our ancestorsfirstbegan to
This studyexploresthelogicalpossibilitythatthefirstimages
ofthehumanfigure were made from thepointofview ofself createrepresentationalimages of the human body or
ratherthanotherand concludesthatUpperPaleolithic"Venus" what functionstheyinitiallyserved(Conkey I983).
figurinesrepresent ordinary women'sviewsoftheirown bod- This studychallenges the assumptionthat images of
ies. Usingphotographic simulationsofwhata modernfemale the human figurewere firstcreated fromthe point of
sees ofherself,it demonstrates thattheanatomicalomissions view of otherhuman beingsand arguesinsteadthatthe
and proportional distortions foundin Pavlovian,Kostenkian, and
Gravettianfemalefigurines occurnaturallyin autogenous,or art of representingthe human body originatedwith vi-
self-generated,information. Thus the size, shape,and articula- sual informationderived primarilyfromthe physical
tionofbodypartsin earlyfigurines appearto be determined by point of view of "self." Afterrestudyingthe originals
theirrelationship to theeyesand therelativeeffects offoreshort- fromthis neglectedpoint of view,2I conclude that the
ening,distance,and occlusionratherthanby symbolicdistor- oldest images of the human body literallyembodyego-
tion.Previoustheoriesoffunctionare summarizedto providean
interpretivecontext,and contemporary claimsofstylistichetero- centricor autogenous(self-generated) visual information
geneityand frequent male representations are examinedand obtained froma self-viewingperspective(McDermott
foundunsubstantiated by a restudyoftheoriginals.As self- I 98 5). Furthermore,since all the earliest,best-preserved,
portraitsofwomenat different stagesoflife,theseearlyfigurines and most refinedpieces appear to be analog representa-
embodiedobstetricaland gynecological information and probably
signifiedan advancein women'sself-conscious controloverthe tions3ofwomen lookingdown on theirchangingbiolog-
materialconditionsoftheirreproductive lives. ical selves, I conclude that the firsttraditionof human
image makingprobablyemergedas an adaptiveresponse
LE ROY MC DERMOTT is AssociateProfessor ofArtat Central to the unique physical concerns of women and that,
MissouriStateUniversity (Warrensburg, Mo. 64093,U.S.A.). whateverelse these representationsmay have symbol-
Bornin I943, he was educatedat OklahomaStateUniversity ized to the societywhich createdthem,theirexistence
(B.A.,I965) and at theUniversity ofKansas(M.A.,I973; Ph.D.,
I985). His researchinterests lie in thepsychology ofvisualper- signifiedan advance in women's self-consciouscontrol
ceptionand arthistory.He has published"The Structure ofArtis- over the materialconditionsof theirreproductivelives.
tic Evolution:An Interdisciplinary Perspective,"in Problemsof Beforerepresentational artor mirrors,therewere only
Method: Conditions of a History of Art (Proceedings of the 24th two sources of visual informationabout human appear-
InternationalCongressoftheHistoryofArt,Bologna,Italy,Sep-
temberio-i8, I979) (Milan: L'ElectaEditrice,i982), and (with
C. H. McCoid),"TowardsDecolonizingGender:FemaleVision KansasAnthropology Museum.I thankElizabethBanks,JillCook,
in the EuropeanUpperPaleolithic"(AmericanAnthropologist, in CatherineHodgeMcCoid,BradleyLenz,AntaMontet-White, and
press).The presentpaperwas accepted27 iv 95, and thefinalver- Olga Soffer fortheircriticaland conceptualcontributions to this
sion reachedtheEditor'sofficeii viii 95. project.CathyClark,Suzanne Olmstead,and Lisa Schmidthave
developedphotographic inventories in supportoftheproject.I also
gratefully
acknowledgethe cooperationof the expectantmothers
who madeit possibleforme to explorethishypothesis.
i. The thesisof thispaperwas firstpresentedat the 6thAnnual 2. This studyreexamined, eitherin theoriginaloras casts(orboth),
MeetingoftheMidwestArtHistorySociety,heldat theUniversity mostWesternand CentralEuropeanimagesdatedto thePavlovian
of Kansas,April 5-7, I979, and subsequentlyto the i2th Inter- and Gravettian.Studyof Kostenkianpieces was limitedto four
nationalCongressof Anthropological and EthnologicalSciences castsfromGagarino,twofromAvdeevo,and threefromKostenki,
(ICAES),meetingat Zagreb,Yugoslavia,July24-3I, I988. The re- courtesyoftheMoravianMuseumin Brno,Czech Republic.
searchhas been assistedbygrantsfromEasternMontanaCollege 3. An "analog"imageis notto be confusedwiththeuse of"analogi-
and CentralMissouriStateUniversity, and the followinginstitu- cal" methodologiesin archaeologicalinterpretation. Analogyre-
tionshave made castsand/ororiginalsavailable:Mus6e des Anti- quiresonlythattherebe sufficient tojustify
similarity comparison.
quit6sNationalesat SaintGermain-en-Laye; Mus6e de l'Homme, In contrast, a modernphotograph orotheranalogimageis a physi-
Paris; Museo Preistoricoed Etnografico Luigi Pigoriniin Rome; cal transform or recordofthe energy(orlight)whichit captures.
MittelrheinischesLandesmuseum,Mainz; Prahistorische Samm- Thus,in theory, a continuousphysicalvariablelinksanyrealistic
lungen,Ulm; Sammlungendes InstitutsfurVor-und Fruhge- imageandtheoriginalvisualinformation whichitrepresents, even
schichteder UniversitatTuibingen;Prahistorische Staatssamm- ifin practicethatlink can rarelybe reconstructed.Ifthefirstim-
lung in Munich; Naturhistorisches Museum at Vienna; Mo- ages ofthehumanbodywerecreatedfromself-generated informa-
ravsk6Muizeumin Brno,Czech Republic,and the Universityof tion,theynecessarilyhave the structure we observe.
227

228 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume37, Number2, AprilI996
ance-either one's own body or that of anotherhuman The FirstHuman Images

being.4At the beginningof arthistorytherewould have
been no a priorireason to choose one source over the The earliest prehistoricrepresentations,the so-called
other.Admittedly,thereis the practiceof more recent Venus figurines,constitutea recognizablestylisticclass
millennia to influenceour thinking,but what otherba- and are among the most widelyknownofall Paleolithic
sis do we have for assuming that at the beginningof objects (figs.i and 2). As a grouptheyhave frequently
image making a prehistoricartist would "naturally" been describedin the professionaland popularliterature
have chosen to representanotherhuman being rather (Abramova i967a, b; Bahn and Vertut I988; Burkitt
than self?To determinewhat choice of visual informa- I934; ConkeyI987; DelporteI993a, b; Dobres igg2a,
tionactuallyprevailedat thebeginningofrepresentation b; Duhard I993b; Gamble i982; Giedion i962; Gomez-
in the Upper Paleolithic,the attributesof the surviving Tabanera I978; Gvozdover Ig8gb; Graziosi I960; Had-
images should be experimentallyexamined for the ingham I979; Hancar I939-40; Jelinek I975, I988;
structural regularities predicted if the artist's body Leroi-GourhanI968a, b, i982; Luquet I934; Marshack
servedas the originalmodel. There is no reason to sus- I99Ia, b; McDermott I985; Pales and de St.-Pereuse
pect that informationfromdirectvisual self-inspection I976; PassemardI938; Pfeiffer i982; PraslovI985, I986;
has changed since the Upper Paleolithic,and thus the Putnam I988; Saccasyn-Della Santa I947; Ucko and Ro-
image projectedonto the retinaofa woman livingtoday senfeldI967; White i986). Scholarsand the public alike
constitutesthe visual analog of that perceivedby her have been struck by the generallyrealistic quality of
long-dead ancestors. What modern females see when many of these early female figurines (Abramova
lookingdown upon themselvescan be photographically I967b:67; Duhard I993b; Luquet I934:439; Piette
simulated and compared with the original artifacts I895:I30; Praslov i985:i82; Saccasyn-Della Santa
viewed froma similarperspective.When the distinctive I947). Almost everyonesees nude women either opu-
formand content of this self-generated informationis lentlyendowedor embarrassingly obese (Regnaulti9i2).
thus comparedwith the attributesofthe earliesthuman Upon analysis, however,the actual formsof the figu-
figuressimilarlyseen, a stronglynaturalisticand lifelike rines are revealed to be so much at variance with ana-
correspondenceis in factroutinelyencountered.In the tomical exactitude that many researchershave seen
firstrepresentations ofthe human body,the "disembod- them as reflectingarbitraryconvention and abstract
ied" view of objective anatomical proportionswhich schematizationratherthan observationalreality(Con-
governsmodernscientificthinkingappearsto have been keyi983:2I5; Dobresigg2b:255; Leroi-Gourhan i968a:
less imprtantthan the optically"correct"relationships 207). In fact,it is the specificway in which realityis
of a more immediatesubjectiveperspective.5 integratedwith presumablyconceptualdeparturesfrom
anatomical objectivitythat best defines this style of
image.
4. The oldestmirrors appearin the Neolithic(MellaartI967:208) These mostly palm-sized statuettesappear to depict
in the formof polishedobsidiandiscs foundat ?atal Huyuk(ca.
8,500-7,700 B.P.). Aqueous reflections were available during the nude obese women with faceless and usually down-
UpperPaleolithic,butthehorizontalsurfaceofa naturalpool dis- turnedheads, thin arms which commonlyend or disap-
tortstheproportions offull-lengthhumanfigures in a mannercom- pear under the breasts (but occasionally cross over
pletelyat variancewiththoseencountered in thefirsttraditionof them),an abnormallythinuppertorsocarrying volumi-
image making.
5. Although thishypothesis relieson visualevidenceforitsdemon- nous and pendulous breasts, exaggeratedly large or ele-
stration,tactileand somato-sensory information would certainly vated buttocks often splayed laterallybut sometimes
have contributed to any act of self-representation.Althoughit is distendedrearward,a prominent,presumablypregnant
virtuallyimpossibleto demonstrate such a role experimentally, or adipose abdomen with a large elliptical navel, and
tactileknowledgecould easily have operatedto fashionfeatures what oftenappear to be oddly bent, unnaturallyshort
whichcouldnotbe seenfroma self-viewing perspective.Represen-
tationsof hair,forexample,are oftenencountered amongthese taperinglegs which terminatein eithera roundedpoint
images,andwhilethelongtressesseenin vertically engraved lines or disproportionately small feet.Althoughreadilyrecog-
at Lespuguecan descendintothevisualfield,close-fitting coiffures nizable, these anatomical details do not add up to an
such as the checkerboard or quadrillagepatternwom bytheGri- accurate image of the human figure.
maldi"Negroidhead,"the"Brassempouy lady,"and a smallrelief
fromLausselcouldnothavebeenseenbytheirowners.Thiswould
I contendthatit is the fixedangle ofself-regard which
also have been the case withthetightcircularringletsapparently accounts forboth the odd "realism of parts considered
favoredfarther east,as seenat Willendorf, Pavlov,Kostenki,Gaga- independentlyone fromanother"observedby Saccasyn-
rino,and Avdeevo(DelporteI993a:figs.7, I9, 44, 95, i28, I55C, Della Santa (I947:96) and Leroi-Gourhan'sconclusion
I68, I74, i83). Similarly, thetactileknowledgewomencan be ex- that the figuresappear "centeredon the torso,breasts,
pectedto have of theirhair may also have been the sourcefor
representations of the vulva,whichis likewisenormallyoutside thighs and abdomen," with the rest "attentuated" or
the self-viewing visual field.The absenceofthe vulvain mostof "dwindlingaway" above and below (i968a:2o7). The lat-
theseimagesis strikingly consistentwiththe physicallimitsof ter researcherchristenedthe collective result of these
visual self-inspection, whereasthefactthatmostfemalefigurines distinctivedistortions,anatomical omissions, and gen-
with a vulva come fromthe singlesite of Grimaldiis logically eral
consistent withregionalvariations in thewayinwhichautogenous disproportionof parts the "lozenge composition"
information, includingthatoriginating in touch,was employedin (i968a:go; i968b). The structuralnatureofthese distor-
fashioning imagesofself. tionshas oftenbeen overlookedbyscholarswho see gen-

MC DERMOTT Self-Representation
in Female Figurines1229
a b c d
e f g h
FIG. i. Anatomicaldistortions encountered in Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettianfigurines (redrawn
afterLeroi-Gourhan 1968a:9o),showingtherelationships Leroi-Gourhan called the'lozengecomposition":an
abdominalcirclewitha diameterdefinedbythegreatestwidthoftheimage(a, b),theincorrect proportions
seenin theupperand lowerbody(c,d),theunnaturalelevationoftheverticalmidpointand greatestwidthof
thefemalebody(a-h), and therepresentation ofwhatshouldbe halfofthebody(pubestoground)as being
closerto one-thirdthetotallength(e,f,g). a, Lespugue;b, Grimaldi"lozenge";c, Kostenkino. 3; d, Gagarino
no. I; f,Laussel "womanwiththehorn";g,Dolnl Vestonice
no. I; e, Willendorf no. I; h, Gagarinono. 3.
der or variations of feminine morphologyand repro- below the level ofthe hip joint or crotchand halfabove.
ductive histories in the style of these works (Dobres For the average woman, this vertical midpoint of the
i992b:252; DuhardI99I, I993a, b; Nelson I993; Pales bodyalso coincideswithits greatesthorizontalorlateral
andde St.-Pereuse I987). In fact, width. In the typical "lozenge composition,"however,
1976; Rice I98I; Soffer
the consistentdeparturesfromnatureseen in theseearly while the vertical midpoint and greatest horizontal
imagesinvolvebasic structuralalterationsin thenormal width continue to occur together,theirintersectionis
verticaland horizontalproportionsof the human body unnaturallyelevatedto the level ofthenavel. This effect
(Pales and de St.-PereuseI976:68-73). resultsfroma generalatrophyofthe lowerbodywherein
In human beings,halfthe body's lengthtypicallylies the distance fromthe crotchto the groundis typically

230 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April 1996
a b c d
e f g h
FIG. 2. PKG-stylefigurines, illustratingthe centraltendencyof the style.a, Grimaldi "yellow steatite
statuette"; b, large Khotylevopiece; c, Gagarinono. 4; d, Avdeevo no. I; e. Moravany; f,g, h, Kostenkinos.
I, 2, and 4.
representedas about one-thirdof the total body length Women today,regardlessofrace,weight,or reproduc-
instead of half (Pales and de St.-PereuseI976:7I ).6 tive history,do not have such disproportionatestruc-
tural relationshipsbetween body parts.While Delporte
recognizesthe criticalimportanceofunderstanding this
6. The factthatthe lowerextremities ofmanyearlyfigurines are
missingbecause of breaksraises legitimatequestionsabout the generalizedatrophyofthe upperand lowerbody(I993a:
frequency of this structural Whenspecimenspreserve 244, 275), he perpetuatesan unfortunate
distortion. assumptionby
theirextremities, however,such distortionsare almostinvariably seeking the explanationin "a psychologicalimperative
seen,and it is reasonableto assume,in theabsenceofanysignifi- which correspondsto a conceptionofwomen in the life
cant contrary evidence,thattheseproportions shouldbe used in and behaviorofprehistoricman" (I993 C: Io). Whyspecu-
thereconstruction ofspecimenswhichhave survivedonlyas frag-
ments.Amongthosewhichpreservetheiroriginallength,onlythe late about psychologicalmechanismsbeforeexperimen-
"punchinello"fromGrimaldieven approachesa correctanatomi- tallyexaminingthe materialevidence ofhuman vision?
cal height-width ratio,whereasthelargeLausselrelief(andproba- We should not simply ascribe the "violation of certain
blytherelieffigures fromAbriPataudandLa Moutheas well),the
Monpazierand Lespuguefigurines fromFrance,theSavignanoand
Chiozza pieces fromItaly,the Willendorf fromAustria,and Kos- fromcrotchto groundas closerto one-third thetotalthanone-half
tenkino. 3, Gagarinonos. 4 and 83-I, and Avdeevono. 76, 77-I, (Pales and de St.-PereuseI976:71). The same structural
distortion
and 77-2 fromRussia (DelporteI993a:figs. I9, 43, 49, S, 6i, 9i, is perhapseven more consistently represented
by the unnatural
97, 99, i28, i68, I73, I83-85, and i92) all represent
the distance elevationoftheverticalmidpointin theseimages.

MC DERMOTT in Female Figurines1 23I
Self-Representation
body proportions"to the deliberate "accentuation" or see Bahn and VertutI988:85; SofferI987:335-36) that
"willful distortion" of female body parts (Gvozdover the vast majorityof these images were created in the
i989b; Delporte I993a:259) beforeasking if a physical middle Upper Paleolithic and are stylisticallydifferent
mechanismcould be responsibleforthe "violations" ob- fromthose of the later Magdalenian (Delporte I993a:
served.I contend that theiroriginlies in what all hu- 24I; I993b:243). These firstrepresentations of the hu-
mans and especially expectantmotherscan and cannot man figureare centeredin the Gravettianassemblages
see when theylook down at theirown bodies. (UpperPerigordianV3 or Noaillian) ofFranceand related
The distortionsin these firstimages are producedby easternvariantsof that techno-complex,especially the
threestructuralregularitiesinherentin the body as di- Pavlovian in the Czech Republic and the Kostenkianin
rectlyself-inspectedbut not necessarilyobservedfrom Russia (29,000-23,000 B.P.). ForconvenienceI shall label
the point of view of otherhuman beings.First,because thisstyleofimage the Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettian
it begins with the same fixedpoint of view, everyone's (hereafter PKG) (Delporte I993a:2I3; I993b:225; Otte
experienceof self-generated visual informationhas the and Keeley I990:579; SofferI987:344). Images of this
same structure,includinga distinctivecanon ofpropor- style are most often small-scale statuettes carved in
tions, despite variationsexpressiveof individualphysi- stone,bone, and ivory,with a fewearlyPavlovianexam-
ognomy,age, and gender.Second,because ofthe oblique ples modeled in a formof firedloess (Vandiveret al.
angle of self-regard,
self-generatedinformation is always I989, Sofferet al. I993). They use the same materials
stronglyforeshortened, and bodypartsclose to the eyes and techniques and distinctivesculpturalrenderingof
projecta proportionately largerimage on the retinathan mass seen in animal sculpturesfromearlierAurignacian
those fartheraway. Both an invariantorderof propor- sites at Vogelherd and Geissenklosterle(Hahn et al.
tional relationshipsand foreshortenedshapes are im- I977; Mellars i989:362-63; White I989:98) and from
posed upon human anatomy viewed egocentrically.In later Pavlovian sites at Dolni Vestonice, Moravany-
addition,many objectiverelationshipsbetweenregions Lopata, Piredmosti,Pavlov i (Delporte I993b:247), and
ofthebodycannotbe directlyapprehended,amongthem Kostenki i (Abramova i967a, b). This sculpturalqual-
the true lengthof the lower extremitiesand the thick- ity, seen also in stronglycarved bas-reliefsof female
ness ofthe torso,while otherwiseprominentanatomical figuresfromfour French Gravettiansites (Laussel, La
featuressuch as the buttocksare virtuallyor completely Mouthe, Abri Pataud, and Terme Pialat), contrasts
absent fromthe visual field. Finally,since one cannot sharplywith the thoroughlytwo-dimensionalnatureof
visually apprehendone's own body as a whole, any im- later Magdalenian engravedand paintedhuman figures
age of self as an independentthree-dimensionalentity and animals commonlysaid to markthe "birth"ofrep-
must be the mental combinationor integrationof the resentationalart (Delporte I 993b:243).
multiple viewpoints possible in direct visual self- Magdalenianhuman representations are concentrated
inspection.7Multiple viewpoints,having more or less primarilybetween i 5,ooo and i I,000 B.P. (Magdalenian
finiteifoverlappingboundaries,are an inherentrequire- 3 through6) and are stylisticallydifferent fromthis ear-
ment of all (technologicallyunassisted) human self- lier activity.Most of them parallel in time the famous
inspection. Operating together,these structuralregu- decorated caves of France and Spain and consist of
larities provide a material origin for the "lozenge sketchyengravedand painted"anthropomorphs, " which
composition." Moreover, the discontinuous nature of on the basis ofan occasional erectpenis and tuftoffacial
the visual informationthus producedabout the human hair are consideredmales, and equally schematic but
body and the sequence or orderin which it is experi- much more consistentlyrenderedand farmore numer-
enced may be relevant to the content and fabrication ous "profile"or "buttock" images,now almost univer-
processes seen in othercategoriesof femalerepresenta- sallyseen as portraying females(BosinskiI99I; Delporte
tions from the Upper Paleolithic such as "sketches" I993a, b; Duhard I993b; Feustel I967; RosenfeldI977).
(e'bauches)and "buttock" images. The consistencywith which the more numerous but-
tock or profileimages of femalesare renderedstandsin
marked contrastwith the relativerarityand varietyof
Chronologicaland GeographicalDistribution the cursorilyengravedand painted Magdalenian male
"anthropomorphs."This quantitative and qualitative
In spite of many difficultiesin dating,especiallyamong differentialin renderingmales duringthe Magdalenian
findsfromFranceand Italy,a consensusis emerging(but echoes an even more pronounced gender difference
among the earlierimages.
It must be emphasized that these two sets of human
7. Thereis no logicalreasonto assume thatourfirstportrayal of
the humanbodyfollowedthe unifiedor objectiveperspectiveof images are separatedby as much as io,ooo years,and
modernhuman anatomy.The currentconventionforthe full- theirrelianceupon the second and thirddimensionsre-
lengthhumanbodyassumesthatwe see otherhumansas ifthey spectively shows that they follow differentdevelop-
were standingat an elevationand/ordistancesufficient forour mental trajectories(Conkey I985:30I). The experience
line of sightto bisectthe body'sverticalaxis. Such an idealized of arthistorydemonstratesthat the socioeconomic and
imageimpliesa habitof lookingat othersfromsufficient social
distanceto ignoreproximalforeshortening effects andrelatesulti- cultural context supportingsuch formalvocabularies
matelyto how we objectivelyknow the humanbodyto be con- could be as diverseas those separatingthe abstracttwo-
structedratherthanhow we routinelyspe it. dimensionalformsofChristianRomanesque and Byzan-

232 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996
tine art fromthe naturalisticthirddimensionof pagan TABLE I

Greek and Roman sculpture. Pavlovian, Kostenkian,and GravettianSites with
Radiocarbon dates for the importanteastern Gra- StylisticallyRelated Female Figurines
vettian or Pavlovian site of Dolni Vestonice in Mora-
via indicatethatarchaicformsofPKG-styleimages first
Site Location Source
emergeas earlyas 30,000 to 28,000 B.P. (DelporteI993a:
2I2-I3), withmost dates fallinginto the 26,000 B.P.
range (Delporte I993b:244). Other dates rangingfrom Avdeevo Russia Abramova (I967),
24,000 to 2I,000 B.P. forKostenki i on the Don River Praslov(i985)
Gagarino Russia Abramova (i967),
in Russia (p. 245), 27,ooo to 25,000 B.P. forPavlov in the Tarassov(I97 I)
Czech Republic(p. I44), 23,000 to 2i,600 B.P. at Abri Khotylevo Russia Delporte (I993a)
Pataud in France (Movius I977), and 25,000 B.P. forthe Kostenki Russia Abramova (i967a,
Russian site Khotylevo support the conclusion that b), Praslov
first-phasePKG image making clusters around one of (I986)
Dolni Vestonice Czech Republic Absolon (I949)
two interstadials-the Tursac in the west and the Bri- Moravany Czech Republic Zotz (i968)
ansk in easternEurope,fromaround27,000 to 23,000 Pavlov Czech Republic Delporte (I993a)
B.P. (DelporteI993a:I84, 2I3; I993b:244; Soffer
I985). Petrkovice Czech Republic Delporte (I993a)
While such precisionmay be unwarranted, absolute dat- Willendorf Austria Delporte (I993a)
Mainz-Linsenberg Germany Passemard (I938),
ing clearlyindicates"a certainchronologicalhomogene- Delporte(I993a)
ity among sites" with PKG-style activity (Delporte Chiozza Italy Graziosi (i960)
I993b:245). Grimaldi Italy Passemard (I938),
Geographically,most sites with PKG-styleimages are (Menton) Reinach(i898)
located in a 3,ooo-kilometer-longculturalcorridorcon- Parabita Italy Radmilli (i969)
Savignano Italy Graziosi (i960),
necting the northernslopes of the Pyreneeswith the Passemard
rivervalleys of European Russia.8 To the south of this (I938)
"female statuettezone" (Delporte I993b:244), notable Abri Pataud France Movius (I977)
late examples are known fromItaly (Radmilli I969); Brassempouy France Passemard (I938),
Piette(i895)
none have been found in Spain. The contrastbetween La Mouthe France Dickson (i99o)
thewide geographicaldistributionofthe earlyPKG style Laussel France Lalanne and
and the limited extent of the classical Franco- Buoysonnie
Cantabrian cave art during the Magdalenian demon- (I946)
stratesagain the distinctnaturesof these traditionsand Lespugue France de Saint-Perier
(I922)
argues against any "single cumulative, gradual trajec- Monpazier France Clottes and Crou
toryof artisticdevelopment"capable of accountingfor (1970)
reproduction"ofthevari-
the "contexts"or "differential Pechialet France Delporte (1993a)
ous "systemsofvisual imagery"now understoodas con- Sireuil France Breuil and
Peyrony(I930)
stitutingthe Upper Paleolithic record (Conkey I983: Terme Pialat France Delporte (I993a)
2 I 0-2.2). France Delporte (i960)
Tursac (Abri
To date approximately40 intact or mostly intact Facteur)
figuresin the PKG stylehave been published,and about
twice that number of figuresare known as fragments
(BissonandBolducI994, DelporteI993a, Gamblei982,
Pales and de St.-PereuseI976, Praslov I985). The frag- activity,whereas only individual pieces were foundat
mentaryand poorlypreservednatureofmuch ofthe evi- Moravany in the Czech Republic, Savignano and Chi-
dence and the factthatsome sites yieldedlargenumbers ozza in Italy, and Abri Pataud, Le Mouthe, Lespugue,
of findswhereas othersare known onlyfromindividual Monpazier, Sireuil, and Tursac in France. Quantitative
pieces make it difficultto describethe geographicaldis- approachesbecome even more problematicif one also
tributionof these images quantitatively.For example, attempts to count possible variant and unfinished
more than 70 pieces have been identifiedfromfoureast- "sketches." A saferindicatoris the numberofsites from
ern sites-Dolni Vestonice (6), Gagarino(8), Khotylevo which PKG-styleimages are known. On the basis of ei-
(5), and Kostenki(53). Abramova(i967b) reports47 frag- therstratigraphy or stylisticanalysis,I identifysuch im-
mentaryworks, mostly heads, from Kostenki alone. ages at 24 Upper Paleolithic sites (see table i).
Brassempouyand Grimaldi show similar concentrated Withinthe stylisticparadigmdefinedby these sites,
regionalvariationsdo exist (Delporte I993a, b). Further-
8. Whileundoubtedly relatedto PKG-styleimages,Siberianfigu- more,where an adequate sample is available, as in Rus-
rinesfromBuret'and Mal'ta near Lake Baikal,east of the Ural sia, intra-and even intersitedistinctionscan be demon-
Mountains,are not includedin this studybecause theyare geo- strated(Gvozdover I989b). There are subtle variations
graphicallyremoved(5,ooo km fromnearestRussiansites),styl- in height/widthratios, details of arms and heads, and
in formand content,and laterthan European
isticallydifferent
examples (Abramovai967b; Delporte I993a; Graziosi I960; orientationof major body regions which may or may
Leroi-Gourhan I968a; McDermottI985). not prove to be of semiological significance.Claims of

"empiricalvariability"(Dobres i992b:249) ortrueheter- rennialappeal-although sometimeswith peculiarcon-

ogeneity among these earliest works (Hadingham sequences. For example, Piette (I902:775) saw enlarged
I979:220-225; Nelson I993:5I; Pales andde St.-Pereuse fattybuttocksin a piece fromGrimaldiand institution-
I976:93; SofferI987:336) can be defended,however, alized a long-lastingfascinationwiththeunusual condi-
only by ignoringa clear centraltendencydefiningthe tion of steatopygia.Althoughhaving little in common
style as a whole. General qualities and particulartraits beyondampleness,the posteriorsof subsequentdiscov-
characterizeall categoriesof culturalartifacts,and it is eries at Willendorfand Laussel in i908, Lespugue in
not necessarily a methodological mistake to speak i922, and Savignanoin I924 fueledthe lamentableten-
"about both the diversityand homogeneityof prehis- dencyto see all prehistoricpeculiaritiesof the buttocks
toric material culture in the same breath" (Dobres as steatopygous.
igg2a:8). While acceptingthat "the unique featuresof Earlythis century,ethnographicobservationsencour-
Palaeolithic art are . . . vital clues to any attempt at aged the equally pervasive idea that all prehistoricart
interpretation"(Layton i992:2i9) and that PKG-style was involvedwith huntingand fertility magic (Reinach
figurines,"like any otherarchaeologicalobject,contain I903). Originallyfocusedon parietalart,the hypothesis
enumerablevariables that can be quantifiedand com- was extended with subsequent recognitionof humans
pared," one must also acknowledge a distinctiveap- among the animals. Barely recognizable Magdalenian
proach to formand contentthat is more than "just one "anthropomorphs" withanimal and human featuresand
subset of superficial . . . attributes" associated with the exuberantlyfemale PKG-style figurineswere thought
nude female body (SofferI987:336). Real femalebodies alike rituallyengagedin ensuringthe success of imme-
do not tapertop and bottom,carrytheirbuttocksabove diate and futurehunts (Begouen,ig29a, b; Breuil i952;
the tailbone, or possess the other distortionsand ana- Reinach I903; Saccasyn-Della Santa I947:9-2i). With
tomical omissions which definethe PKG style. or withoutthe magical element,the idea thatPKG-style
Since stone tools from open-air Russian sites have exaggerationssignal a symbolicinterestin fertility and
long been recognizedas relatedto industriesfromCen- fecundityhas been very influential(Abramova i967b,
tralEurope(see Gvozdoveri989b:32; Praslov i985:i82), BurkittI934, Pales and de St.-PereuseI976, Ucko and
it is quite probablethat theirhuman figurinesare also RosenfeldI967).
related.For Delporte the common lithic characteristics Passemard's I938 demonstrationthattruesteatopygia
underlyingregionalvariations"imply,ifnot homogene- is in fact rarely representedhad the perverse conse-
ity among European Gravettiangroups,at least a mea- quence of only strengthening this idea that the enor-
sure of similarityworthrecognizing"(I993b:244). As in mous hips (and breasts)offemalefigureshad to be sym-
the lithic assemblages,the "stylisticunity" and "figu- bolic. When the fascinationof male scholarswith such
rative paternity"seen between "remarkablyhomoge- attributesfused with magico-religious,ethnographic,
neous" PKG-style images from Russian sites at Ko- and even Freudianideas (Neumann I955:98), a host of
stenki, Gagarino, Avdeevo, and Khotylevo and those analogical possibilitiesarose,rangingfromthe aesthetic
fromwesternGravettianand CentralEuropeanPavlov- ideal of obese women (Schuchhardti926) and ethologi-
ian sites reveal common selectiveprocesses.Thereis no cal signals of "biological readiness" (Guthrie I984:59)
theoreticalimpedimentto studyingthe contextof such to prosaic yearningsfor erotic stimulation and other
choices in the formsoftheirrepresentational art.At the masculine sociosexual drives(Absolon I949:204; Barton
core of the PKG style lies a set of departuresor devia- I940:I3I; Jelinek i988:220; Levy I948:58; Luquet
tionsfroman otherwiseanatomicallyaccuraterepresen- I930:II0-II; Zotz I955). For some it seemed obvious
tation of the human body (Abramova i967b:67; Del- that the bulgingvolumes of PKG-stylefigurines"were
porte I993a:244, 259, 275), and accordingto Gzovdover made, touched, carved, and fondledby men" because
this "stylisticdeformationof the naturalbodyrevealsa "clearlyno othergroupwould have had such an interest
common tendencythroughoutEurope" (I989b:79). in the female form" (Collins and Onians I978:I2-I4).
For anotherit was equally self-evidentthat this "early
erotica" bore "a great resemblanceto the images por-
Previous Interpretations trayedin men's toilet stalls" and must be "an artmade
bymen about male preoccupations"notunlike thatseen
Much that has been writtenon the significanceand today in men's magazines (Guthrie I984:59-7I). The
functionof Upper Paleolithic female images involves emphasis in female images on sexual traitsratherthan
some analogical or symbolichypothesisas to why they personalfeaturessuch as the face was seen as a logical
departfroman otherwiseobjectiverealism.One endur- consequence of another perceived origin for animal
ing approachresolvesthe conflictby identifying this re- art-as huntingtrophies.As trophiesdepictingacts of
currentincongruitywith anomalous or unusual catego- rape, kidnap,or murder,PKG-styleimages would have
ries of visual information.Whetherscholarshave found epitomized masculine status symbols by representing
the Negroid race in Europe (Piette I902:773), extremes "brave acts among males" to promotegroupsolidarity
ofthe femalelifecycle (Rice I98I), enlargedor hypertro- (Eaton I978; I979:7).
phic breasts (HardingI976), or obesityand the physio- Feministscholarshave soundlycritiquedthe method-
logical consequences of maternity(Duhard I993a, b), ological limitationsofthe "decidedlyandrocentric"par-
thepossibilityofobservationalexactnesshas exertedpe- adigm (Dobres igg2b:245) and "hierarchized and gen-

234 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996
deredsubject-object relationship"(Mack I99-2: 235, .237) been seen as evidenceforthe religioususe ofearlierUp-
operatingin these and other male-centeredanalogical perPaleolithicfemalefigures.Admittedly,thereare sug-
approaches.I can onlyecho Dobres's conclusionthatthe gestive iconographicallinks, such as similar (but not
attempt "to 'naturalize' (male) heterosexual interests identical) "disproportionatesexual attributes" (Gold-
specific to Western industrial society" by imposing man I960-63:8), buttherehas beenno conclusivedem-
them onto female images created 30,000 years in the onstrationofformallinkage(McDermottI987). Gimbu-
past "is withoutmerit" (igg2b:248). tas arguespersuasively
forsucha link(I98I, i982), but
Finally,many othersfindthe cause forthe same ap- as do most who make such claims she usually proceeds
parent distortionsof the female figurein limitations as if the link were already established (Mellaart I967,
imposed by the original material (Abramova i967b: I975; StoneI976). Unfortunately,
as Ucko pointedout
66; Breuil and PeyronyI930:45; Clottes and Cerou in I968, it is impossible to eliminate any number of
I970:435; GraziosiI939:I6I). A usefulreviewofsuch equally plausible sacred and/orprofanefunctionsif the
argumentsis found in Duhard's Realisme de l'image apparentlydistortedattributesof PKG-styleimages7are
femininepaleolithique (I993b: I 57-59), and although indeed arbitrarysymbols for which the code has not
his claims forthe accuraterepresentation ofphysiologi- been preserved.
cal historiesin all Upper Paleolithic femaleimages ex- By limitingitselfto physical processes known to be
ceed the available evidence,particularlyforMagdalen- the same todayas duringthe Upper Paleolithic,my hy-
ian pieces, his conclusion that theirattributesreflecta pothesisminimizesthe projectionof a modernsubject's
"deliberatechoice" and not the constraintsofmaterials ideologyinto prehistory (Mack I992:239). Unlike an
is persuasive. analogy, which only assumes that "the same causal
Toward midcenturythe enthusiasmforethnographic mechanismsthatoperatedin UpperPaleolithicEurope"
hunting-and-fertility-magic interpretations gave way to also operatetoday(LaytonI992:2I3), it can be experi-
a concern for "context" in Paleolithic art. Controlled mentallytested.How and what a contemporary woman
excavation at rich Russian sites foundPKG-stylefigu- can or cannot physicallysee of her own body without
rinesin the domestic contextof hut floors,storagepits, the assistance of technologycan be objectivelydeter-
and niches (Hancar I939-40) and led Efimenko(citedin mined. For women, palpable proofor refutationcould
Abramova I967b:8i) to see female ancestorimages at begin with their own observations,whereas men can
the core of a matrilinealclan organization.The difficul- only approximateor simulate what a woman sees.
ties of inferringintentfromthe archaeologicalcontext
of these and later Russian discoveriesare discussed by
Gvozdover(i989b:70-78), while discussionofthe "loca-
tional tendencies" preservedin western sites can be StylisticVariabilityand Choices in Visual
foundin Delporte (I993a:259-6i) and Hahn (I993:236- Information
37). In spiteofthemeagerevidencepreservedfrommany
earlyexcavations,context,writlargeto include all dia- An unstatedassumptionof most previousefforts at un-
chronic and synchronicvariation,continues to domi- derstandingPKG-styleimages is that theydeviate from
nate questions of functionand motivation. ordinaryanatomical realityfor some symbolic or psy-
Contemporarycognitive and information-exchangechological purpose. Thus, the parts of the female body
models have also exertedtheirinfluence(Gamble i982, involvedin reproductiveor eroticactivitiesare accentu-
I993, I986). Althoughthe microscopicevidence which ated or enlargedto symbolize societal values, whereas
Alexander Marshack thoughtrevealed lunar calendars the individualizingand self-actualizingcomponentsof
has beenchallenged (d'ErricoI989, Whitei982), hishy- face,hands, and feetare neglectedbecause theyare in-
pothesisthatUpper Paleolithic artrepresentedseasonal significantto the message (Giedion i962:434; Gvoz-
and other environmentalperiodicitiesas part of a sto- doverI 989b:5 I; NeumannI 953). The appealofsuchan
ried, time-factoredsymbolic system remains a viable idea is understandable,since individuallyand as a class
possibility. Marshack calls specific attention to the PKG-style images reflectchoices in the information
probableoperationin UpperPaleolithicculturesof"sto- theyrepresent.First,as previouslystressed,some parts
ried equations . . . [about] the primaryprocesses and ofthe femalebodydo indeed appearenlargedand others
functionsof woman-including maturation,menstrua- neglected or distorted.Why these specific departures
tion, copulation, pregnancy, birth, and lactation" from objective human physiognomyand not others?
(iggia:282). Along with Conkey, who suggestedthat Furthermore,once chosen, what cultural mechanism
PKG-stylefiguresmight have been motivated by im- sustained the impressive constancy of the PKG style
provementsin "obstetricpractices" or "neonatal care" throughtime and space? Whyare the lower extremities
(i983:222), Marshackdeservescreditforbeingamong of both Frenchand Russian pieces too shortto be ana-
the firstto recognizethatfemaleimages could represent tomicallycorrect?Whyare thebuttocksoffemalestatu-
processes of primaryconcern to the physical lives of ettes fromwidely separatedstrataelevated (fig.3)?
women. Secondly, a strikingselectivityin genderexists. An
The widespreadworshipof a mothergoddessattested examinationofthe originalsrevealsthatonlyone ofthe
by the oldest writtenrecordsand the prevalenceof fe- six figureslong claimed as males in the literaturefor
male imagery during the interveningNeolithic have Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettian or earlier levels can

MC DERMOTT in Female Figurines| 235
Self-Representation
a b c
d e f
FIG. 3. PKG-stylefigurinesin profile,showingcommon massing of three-dimensionalforms,including elevated
buttocksrelative to tailbones (a, b, c). a, Grimaldi "yellow steatite statuette"; b, Willendorfno. I.; c, Lespugue;
d, Gagarino no. 3; e, Gagarino no. I; f,Kostenki I no. 3.
withstandeven cursoryscrutiny.Gvozdover(Ig8gb:56) at Brassempouy.Afterexaminingthesepieces,I join Lu-

also reportsa male fromAvdeevo and Praslov(I985:I86) quet(I934:43I) in concluding
that,whatever
theartist's
one fromKostenki.If confirmed,these will be the first originalintention,the pubic nodes ofthese fragmentary
of this genderever foundin easternEurope (Abramova pieces lack definitionand do not certainlydepict the
i967a, b).9If men were involvedin creatinghuman im- penis.1oIf unfinished,such undifferentiated protuber-
ages at this time, why are virtuallyno males repre- ances could easily have been destinedto become either
sented? the generalizedmons veneris commonlyseen in early
In i902, Piette decided that two fragmentary lower femalestatuettesor the developedvulva foundin a few
bodies fromBrassempouy,originallypublishedin I895,specimens(McDermottI985:I 99-202). On thebasisof
were males. Kuhn (I936:226), Passemard(I938:20), what we know about the developmentof later,better-
Saccasyn-DellaSanta (I947:I62, 199), Leroi-Gourhandocumentedart-historicalperiodstyles,these Brassem-
(i968a:I23), Pales and de St.-Pereuse(I976:pl. I76), and
Duhard (I 993b:3 6, 39) have continuedto identifymales io. Delportedidnotsee thesenodesas male membersin theorigi-
nal I979 editionofhis important studyofprehistoric
femaleim-
ages,but,following Duhard's(I993b) reexamination,
he now finds
9. Accordingto Praslov(I985:i86), "these are onlysuppositions the two pieces "convincingmasculinefigures"(DelporteI993a:
since theydo not have genitalorgans." 26-27; I993b:247).

pouy pieces could with equal logic be consideredunfin- While claims continue to be made for this or that
ished examples of the far more numerous PKG-style isolatedpiece (Lalanneand BouyssonieI94I-46:I39;
femalefigurineswith which theysharemanyattributes. Marshack I988), the fact remains that only one male
Lalanne's i9i2 identificationof a profilemale archer image can be convincinglyidentifiedin the Pavlovian-
in bas-relieffromLaussel has likewise been generally Kostenkian-Gravettian floweringofEuropeanUpperPa-
acceptedin theliterature (Jelinek I975 :4 I2; KuhnI936: leolithicartisticactivity.This standsin markedcontrast
232; Lalanne and Bouyssonie I94I-46:I38; Leroi- to theunequivocal sexual realismand extensivestylistic
Gourhani968a:I23; Luquet I930:I7; Saccasyn-Della membershipwhich characterizefemalefigures.The re-
Santa I947:I64), althoughthe imagepossessesno pri- finementofformand balance and the consummatemas-
maryor secondarysexual characteristics. Pales labeled it teryofmaterialsobservedin better-preserved PKG-style
sexuallyindeterminatein I976 (pl. I77-55), and Duhard figurinesspeak to a long traditionoffemaleimage mak-
subsequentlyinterpretedit as a juvenile female(I993b: ing and an early investmentof physical and aesthetic
73). Compositionallythis one-of-a-kind work has more energiesnever seen in Upper Paleolithicmale images.
in commonwith variantPKG-stylestatuettesfromTur- The scarcityof male images is inconsistentwith con-
sac and Sireuilthoughtto representprofileviews ofado- temporaryclaims of the heterogeneityof earlyhuman
lescent females than with any known male representa- images. The argumentof Leon Pales that therewas far
tion(DelporteI960). more diversityof styleand genderthan has been recog-
In I97I Hahn describeda "male" statuettethat had nized is particularlywell known. Accordingto Pales,
been reconstructedfrombadlydeterioratedfragments of the undue attentiongiven the blatant sexualityof the
mammothtusk originallyexcavated in I939. This very so-called Venus figurineshas caused us to see similar
poorlypreservedivoryfigurinefromHohlenstein-Stadel, attributeseverywhere.On the basis of line drawingsil-
whose over 2oo fragments have gone throughthreecon- lustrating480 "human" images assembledforhis study
figurations (I969, I983, and I988), is said to resemble of engravedfiguresfromthe Frenchsite of La Marche
themale foundat Brno(Delporte 1993a:i 52; Hahn I97I: (Pales and de St.-PereuseI976), he concludes that nu-
24I), but this is a spurioussimilarity. Arrivingindepen- merousUpper Paleolithicrepresentations ofmales were
dentlyat our conclusions,I in I985 and Schmidin I988 also made, with most images actuallybeingsexuallyin-
found it far more reasonable that the piece originally determinate.However,it is onlywhen worksin all me-
representeda female. The penis identifiedby Hahn dia fromall regions of Europe are lumped with those
(I97I:237) is buta serendipitous silhouette produced by fromthe much later Magdalenian that this conclusion
differential weatheringof the concentricivorylamellae can be defended.Not only does Pales ignorebasic tem-
in the tusk; it is not intentionallycarved (McDermott poral and formal distinctionsand treat the immense
I985:2i8). 20,ooo-year span of the EuropeanUpper Paleolithicas a
In I939 Absolon identifiedas male a fragment offired culturalwhole but he counts items withoutregardfor
loess excavated at Dolni V6stonice.A reexaminationof stylisticattributesor skill of execution. Shapeless one-
the originalin the Moravian Museum in Brno renders of-a-kindlumps and incomplete fragmentsare attrib-
dubious even its humanness. An active imaginationis uted equal quantitativesignificancewithstylisticallyre-
needed to see a lower torso with a diffusetruncated lated and intactworksofrareworkmanshipand beauty.
mound located betweenthe stumpsofwhat mightonce By collapsingall images ever thoughtto representa hu-
have been legs. The "penis," forexample,is nearlyequal man figureinto a single pool, he createsa nonhomoge-
in diameterto one ofthe legs,and the essentiallyshape- neous sample incapable of supportinghis conclusions
less piece actuallyresemblesthe frontor rearlegs ofone (McDermotti 9 9i). Whatmightbe defendedas a statisti-
of the numerousbrokenanimal statuettesfoundat the cal descriptionof the Upper Paleolithic in its entirety
site. Of the approximately3,700 modeled "ceramic" actually obscures the dominant representationalform
fragmentsfromDolni Vestonice, the representational from29,ooo to 23,000 B.P.
intent of more than 3,000 cannot be determined,but In his corpus of 480 figures,forexample,Pales classi-
among the remainderthereare 77 nearlywhole and 630 fies 242 as "realistic" and only 238 as "humanoid."
brokenanimals comparedwith only I4 fragments ofhu- Thus, almost half look so little like human beingsthat
man figures(Vandiveret 'al. I989). What Absolon saw accuracy requirestheybe given a separatedesignation.
as a penis is more likelythe stumpofeitheran animal's Of the 242 images classified by Pales as realistic, 25
head or tail and its frontor rearlegs thana one-of-a-kind (io%) are identifiedas males and 97 (40%) as females;
representationof a human male (0. Soffer,personal the remainingi2o (50%), lackingprimaryor secondary
communication,August 8, I988). featuresof gendersuch as genitalia,breasts,or beards,
The muscular fragmentof an ivoryfigurefromBrno, are classifiedas sexuallyindeterminate.How "realistic"
also in the Moravian Museum, with its more correctly is a human image if it lacks such fundamentaldetails,
proportionedstump of a penis at the base of the torso, and how valid is a classificationsystemwhich accepts
does, however,createa realisticimpressionofmasculin- all suggestiveformsas evidenceofcommoncontent(re-
ity.The head, torso,and leftarm of the Brnoman is all alistic humans) without regardforcultural context or
that survives of the only statuettefound in an Upper mannerand styleof representation?
Paleolithic burial. A unique findwith no known sty- Of the 25 males identifiedby Pales, 2i are two-
listic antecedentor descendent,it can certainlybe ac- dimensionalworksdatedto the Magdalenian,thousands
cepted as Pavlovian withoutformalconflict. ofyearsafterthe spreadofPKG-styleimages.The male-

MC DERMOTT in Female Figurines 2e37
Self-Representation
ness of threeof the remainingfour(Brassempouy,Hoh- lithic,and when males do emergeduringthe Magdalen-

lenstein-Stadel,and Dolni Vestonice) is also question- ian their representationalaccuracy seldom if ever ap-
able, as we have seen. In addition,of Pales's 25 realistic proaches that encountered in PKG-style female
males, It are fromLa Marche,while io ofthe remaining images.11
I3 sites producingsuch images are also located in the
classic Franco-Cantabrianregionof Magdalenian art.
The contemporaryvogue of emphasizingrepresenta- ComparingModern Bodies with
tional diversityamong PKG-style images is not sup- PrehistoricArtifacts
portedby the evidence. By pointingto the naturalsym-
metryof the sexes to challengepreexistingbiases, Pales There is an obvious relationshipto be seen betweenthe
did call needed attentionto the way in which genderis stylisticattributesof Upper Paleolithic representations
actually representedamong PKG-style images. How- of the female body in generaland PKG-styleimages in
ever,much needless confusionabout stylisticheteroge- particularand the structuralregularitiesof formand
neity or homogeneityin the Upper Paleolithic would contentcontainedin those minimal viewpointsneeded
have been avoided if studentsof genderin prehistoric by a woman to see her own body.Personalexperimenta-
images had applied principleslearnedfromlater,better- tionwill demonstratethat,withoutexternaltechnologi-
understoodstyles of representationalart. Prehistorians cal assistance,a reasonablyinclusiveinventoryrequires
have too oftenfailedto recognizethatformis more in- at least five or six primaryvistas: (i) head and face, (2)
dicative of a common cultural traditionthan content. superioranterioror upperfrontalsurfaceofbody,(3) in-
Ignoringthis basic tenet of stylisticclassificationhas ferioranterioror lower frontalsurfaceof body,(4) infe-
led to an undue acceptance of one-of-a-kind "male" im- riorlateralor lower side surfaceofbody,and (5) inferior
ages to the point of creatinga categoryof masculine posteriorsurface of body, including (a) under-the-arm
representation wherenone exists.As Delporte observes, views and (b) an over-the-shoulder view.
the wish to findmales participatingin the firsttradition i. Faceless heads. Although the seat of visual self-
of human image making obscuresthe obvious factthat awareness, the objective appearance of the head and
the complex, multivalentmessage "of the 'Gravettian face is simply not visible froma self-viewingperspec-
group has to do with woman" (I993b:256). tive.This logicallyexplainswhy-although thereare re-
Only slightlyless detrimentalto our understanding gionalvariationsin shape,size, and positionin theheads
of PKG-stylefemale images is the pernicioushabit of of PKG-stylepieces-virtually all are renderedwithout
comparingartifactswith artifactswhen judgingrepre- facial featuresand most seem turneddown towardthe
sentational accuracy. If no objective anatomical stan- body as if to bringit into view.12 The absence of direct
dard is employed, what is meant when breasts are
describedas "normal" (Pales and de St.-PereuseI976:
96-97) or when the thoraxis said to be "normallypro- i i. Some female images could have been "made quicklyand
portioned"(Delporte I993b:248)? Only carefulcompari- crudelyfor one limited time and use" (MarshackiggIa:287),
othersappearto have beenleftunfinished
son ofimagewiththe anatomicalrealityit "re-presents" whereasstageofa processthatwouldhave eventuatedin a PKG-style
at someearlier
figu-
can bring order out of the subjective interpretations rine.In male images,otherthanthe mostgeneralcommonalities
which lace the literatureon this subject. Furthermore, oftechniqueandsubjectmatter(suchas prognathous snouts),there
an artist'ssuccess in capturingthe appearanceof exter- has beenlittlesuccessin identifying anyrecurrent formalorstylis-
nal visual informationcan and should be objectively tic attributes. Nor is anyinternalprogress towardrepresentational
accuracyobservedin thisgenderofimage(Leroi-Gourhan i968a).
evaluated.Hastily executedone-of-a-kind worksare not I2. Facial featuresofanykindare rarelyencountered. The extent
or
statistically culturally equivalent with highly fin- to whichthe facesof figurines fromKostenki(no. 83-I) and Av-
ished pieces makingup a clear stylistictraditionofrep- deevo (no 77-I) are developedappearsto be unique in the record
resentationaleffort.To assume otherwiseis to ignore (Delporte I993:fig. I73, I84; Praslovi985:figs.2, 5), althoughparal-
the mechanismsof culturethattrainartistsand sustain lels can be drawnbetweenthemand even moreshadowyand in-
completeformsseen at Monpazier(Clottesand Cerou I 970:fig. I)
the chronologicaland geographicalspreadof a style. and on the Grimaldi"undescribedfigurine"(DelporteI993a:fig.
Indeed, a classificationsystem sensitive to the ba- 94). The positionof the eyes is perhapsindicatedin the "black
sics of art-historicalstyle dramaticallyalters Pales's Venus"no. i ofDolni Vestonice(Marshackiggia:fig.I7I) butat
counts of male and sexually indeterminatePKG-style most suggestsonly an "eerie and ghostly'spirit'face" (P. 377).
The PeabodyMuseum "Janus"figurine fromGrimaldihas rough
images. Males are, as we have seen, virtuallyabsent indentations foreyesandmouth,andevenmoreshadowypossibili-
fromthe record.Further,if only a few of the so-called tiesexistforSavignanoandfigurine no. 2 fromGagarino(Delporte
sketches, which range from admittedly conjectural I993a:fig. 90, 97, i90). The absenceof facialfeatureson the six
roughed-out"blanks" to pieces lacking only the final recentlyrediscovered statuettesfromJullien'searlyexcavationsat
definitionof breastsand abdomen (see fig.4), are recog- Grimaldi
I994).
is consistentwithpriorobservations
Giventhe prominent
(Bissonand Bolduc
positionoffacialinformation in our
nized on the basis of numeroussharedformalattributes affectiveexperienceof otherhuman beings,its generalabsence
as unfinishedfemale images (ratherthan being consid- fromPKG-styleimagessupportstheautogenoushypothesis. How-
ered sexually indeterminate),the dominance of female ever,certainself-viewed facialinformation is alwaysavailable,and
overmale representationsduringthe openingmillennia this may explainwhy the best-executed UpperPaleolithicfaces
arefoundon disembodied headsfromGrimaldi,Brassempouy, and
of the Upper Paleolithicbecomes overwhelming.An or- Dolni Vestonice (DelporteI993a:figs. 7, 95, I43) and not on full
ganized traditionofrepresenting the male figurehas yet figures. Whilenoneofthesehavea fullinventory offacialfeatures,
to be identifiedforthe early and middle Upper Paleo- all do have large,prominentnoses,and thereadercan verifythat

238 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April 1996
a b c
vI
d e f
FIG. 4. Aurignacian (a, b) and PKG-style(c-f) buttonor caplike "headed" ivoryrods, sketches,and
unfinishedfigurinessuggestiveof a time-factored fabricationprocess beginningwith the head. a, Abri Cellier;
b, Vogelherd;c, Pavlov; d, Gagarino sketch; e, Brassempouy"girl"; f,shortfigurefromGagarino ivoryrod
containingtwo unfinishedfigurines.
visual knowledgemay also explain why the most com- With the head held upright,the body is absent from
monlyencounteredformof head is a generalizedround the visual field.'3 This discontinuity,in conjunction
shape vaguely reminiscentof an emergentmushroom with the elemental fact that the human eye and self-
"cap" or "button." Not only is this formfoundon the consciousness alike reside in the head, reinforcesthe
best-preservedFrench,Austrian,and Russian figurines identificationof numerousEuropean Upper Paleolithic
but it predominatesamong fragments, stronglyindicat- pieces, sometimes consisting of little more than a
ing that most missingheads should be similarlyrecon- roundedbuttonor caplike "head" at one end of a rod or
structed(Abramova I967b:pls. 9 and io). Its stylistic tusk,as eitherabbreviatedor incompletehumanfigures.
dominance is furthersupportedby its presenceon sev- Three lines of evidence supportthis possibility.First,
eral variantfigurinesmade frommammothphalanges similarundefinedbutton-likeheads at the ends of sug-
or metacarpals,thoughtto representsquattingpregnant gestivelyshaped rods of Aurignacianprovenance,such
women,fromPiredmosti and Avdeevo (JelinekI975:figs.
642, 643).
I3. The autogenoushypothesisthusprovidesa parsimoniousex-
planationwhyheadlessbodiesandfacelessheadsareso frequently
the nose looms largein one's visual fieldwhen the face is the seenin UpperPaleolithicartandsuggestsa generalrule:The differ-
focusofattentionbut disappearsfromconsciousnesswhenvisual entialencounterofbodypartsin theself-viewingvisualfielddeter-
attentionshiftsto thebody. minesthe frequency oftheirappearancein images.

MC DERMOTT in Female Figurines1.239
Self-Representation
as those fromAbri Cellier and Vogelherd,could be ear- pieces, iftheyare unfinished,predictthatthis emergent
lier effortsat creatinga full-lengthimage of the human process began with the head, the seat of visual self-
body (Delporte I993a:fig. i2i; White i989:98). Second, awareness, and then employed the sequential move-
on the basis of decorativemotifsshared with finished ments necessary for complete visual self-inspection
figurines,Gvozdover has convincinglyidentifiedKos- with attention focused last on the central parts of a
tenkianrods with stylisticallysimilar roundedends as woman's bodyinvolvedin reproduction.Pregnancyand
abstracted or schematic female images (i989a). The self-inspectionboth involve sequential stages whose
thirdis the frequentidentificationof what are seen as typicaltime-factored progressmightwell be revealedin
preliminarysketchesthatcould easilybe figurinesinter- the processes preservedin unfinishedpieces. During
ruptedor abandoned at some stage priorto completion pregnancy,some partsof the body change while others
(McDermottI985:270). In fact, Praslov (I985:i82) remainthe same, and the partswhich undergothe most
claims that sufficientunfinishedexamples have been change appear to be defined last in the fabrication
foundon the Russian Plain to allow him to follow the process.
different stages in making eastern PKG-stylefigurines 2. Superioranterioror upperfrontalsurfaceof body.
from"initial cuttingto finalpolish." The existenceof a Standing erect with the head bowed presents to a
common fabricationprocesswhich beginswith the ma- woman's eye a stronglyforeshortened view ofthe upper
jor horizontaldivisions of the body ratherthan with its frontalsurface of the thorax and abdomen, while the
outline or silhouette could be logically related to the breasts,being close to the eyes, will loom large in the
sequential bendingof the body necessaryfordirectvi- visual field. Creation fromthis perspectiveprovidesa
sual self-knowledge. parsimoniousexplanationforthe voluminousnessand
Sometimes these sketches are little more than tusks distinctivependulous elongationroutinelyobservedin
with a possible head differentiated at the narrowend, the breasts of PKG-style figurines.'4When looked at
such as Pavlov no. 32460 (B. Klima, personalcommuni- fromabove, as a woman observesherself,the breastsof
cation, August 9, i988) and Avdeevo no. 4 (Abramova PKG-stylefigurinesassume the natural proportionsof
I967b:pl. 27), or ivory rods with a button or caplike the averagemodernwoman of childbearingage. For ex-
"head" at one end as seen in earlierAurignacianexam- ample, the dimensions of the breasts of the oft-
ples (see fig.4). The lattercategoryincludes the "doll" illustratedVenus of Willendorfare comparableto those
sketches from Brassempouy,one of the sketches re- of a 26-year-oldmother-to-bewith a 34C bust (see fig.
portedfromGagarino(Delporte I993a:figs. I3, I87), and 5). When foreshortened fromabove, even the apparent
a similar piece fromPavlov (Marshack iggia:fig. i63). hypertrophic dimensionsof the Venus of Lespugue and
Although long associated with finishedfemale statu- the best-preserved figurinefromDolni Vestonice enter
ettes,such pieces actuallypossess no primaryor second- into a reasonablynormal,albeit buxom, range (see fig.
ary sexual characteristics.Marshack has argued that 6). In addition,the fact that the true thicknessof the
these and othersketchesweremade rapidlyfora specific upperbodycannot be experiencedbyself-viewing is log-
one-timeuse (iggia:287) and neverintendedto be fin- ically consistentwith the abnormalthinnessseen in the
ished. Although logical, such a conclusion implies a torsosof many PKG-stylefigurines(see fig.3).
knowledgeof motivationwhich we in factdo not have. When viewed fromabove, most otherapparentana-
It would be best to restrictquestions of procedureto tomical distortionsor omissions of the upperbody un-
thosepieces thatclearlyreflecta commonprocess.What dergo similar realistic transformations.For example,
we know is that some pieces definitelyrepresentunfin- PKG-stylefigurinescommonlyhave what seems to be
ished femalefigurinesat different stages of completion only an ill-proportioned, sharplytaperingfragmentof
and that ivoryrods or tusks with roundedbuttons or the upper arm represented,with the forearmmerging
caplike "heads" could representan even earlierstage in into the side of the body. However, in looking down
this fabricationprocess. The unusual ivory rod con- with arms at the side, a woman does see only the fore-
tainingtwo figurinesjoined at the head fromGagarino, shortenedfrontsurfaceof her upperarm,with the fore-
forexample, clearlyshows different stages of carvingin armsnormallyoccludedbelow thebreasts.Anothercon-
each figure(Tarassov I97I), with the shorterfigurehav- vention explained by the foreshortening and occluding
inglegs and abdomenmoredifferentiated thanthetaller. effectof a self-viewingperspectiveis the unnaturally
A comparable "in-process quality" is clearly seen in large,ellipticalnavel located too close to thepubic trian-
Kostenkistatuetteno. 5 and Khotylevono. 3 in the east
and the Brassempouy "girl" in the west (Delporte I4. Claimsofnaturalshapeand size forbreasts(Clottesand C6rou
I993a:figs. II, I70, 203). Similarroughed-out develop- I970:437; Pales and de St.-PereuseI976:96-97) cannotwithstand
ment is seen in fragmentsof the lower body preserved criticalexamination.Most make erroneouscomparisons between
artifactsratherthanbetweenimageand livinghumanbeings(Mc-
at Brassempouyand Gagarino (Delporte I993a:figs. 6, Dermotti985:233-58). When comparedwith modernanatomy,
I96). thebreastsofsomefigurines areas largeas orlargerthantheentire
It is possible that fabricationof a human figurinein- torso,whichis beyondthe rangeof physiological possibility,let
volved firstdifferentiating a "head" froma "body" of alone theexpectednormsofa prehistoric population.Pales's revi-
sionistargumentthatbreastsin UpperPaleolithicimagesdo not
materialand then followingan essentiallylogical time- differsignificantlyfromtherangethatcanbe seentoday,especially
factoredsequence which mightremainunfinished.Both amongmultiparousmothers,is credibleonlyfroma self-viewing
the autogenous hypothesisand the evidence of these angle.

FIG. 5. Autogenous visual informationof the-upperbody. Top, photographicsimulation of what a

six-months-pregnant 26-year-oldCaucasian female of average weightsees when looking down while
standingerect; bottom,same view of Willendorfno. I (cast).

MC DERMOTT in Female FigurinesI 24I
Self-Representation
bottom,samvie offgrn rm epg (at
FIG. 6. Oblique aerial views of frontbody surfaces.Top, 30o-year-old

Caucasqianfemale,fou7r
months-pregrnant;

gle in several figurines.'5The annular depressionsur-

roundingthe navel proper,seen obliquely fromabove,
projects just this size ellipse, and when pregnanta
woman cannot see the abdomen below the navel.
Also, the dual role ofhands and armsas bothagentof
fabricationand model could relate to theirvariability
and infrequentrepresentation.Being in constant mo-
tion, they have no fixed point of regardin the visual
field and perhaps in human memory.When arm and
hands are crossed over the breasts,they presenttheir
narrowestaspect to the eye in an edge-onview, which
suggestsa rationaloriginforeven the unusual thin"fili-
form"or threadlikearmsofthe well-knownpieces from
Lespugue and Willendorf.'6
3. Inferioranterioror lowerfrontalsurfaceofbody.A
correctlyforeshortened ofthe lowerbody
representation
seen fromabove would shrinkor narrowtowardthe feet
as if its trueheighthad been compressed.Only the au-
togenous hypothesisrenders sensible the compressed
stature(or atrophy)of the lower body,includingthe di-
minutive feet,preservedin some PKG-stylefigurines.
The lower body and feet are optically correctfor the
point of view employedin theirrepresentation.'7
v
It is also a factthatfora pregnantwoman, inspection
of the upper "half" of the body terminatesat the navel
withthe curvingoutlineofthe distendingabdomen.She
must bend at the waist to bringher lower "half" into
view. Thus the gravidfemale's directvisual experience
ofher full-length body involves combiningtwo discrete
views which meet at the abdomen near the level of the
navel-which also, contraryto anatomicalfact,appears
to be the widest partof the body.When she looks down
over the interveningmass ofher growingabdomen,she FIG. 7. Leroi-Gourhan's"lozenge composition,"a
does not see that the vertical midpoint and greatest productof the mental combinationnecessaryto
physical width of her body reallyintersectat the level create a full-lengthimage fromthe separate views
of the hip joint. The apparent misrepresentationof required by female self-inspectionoffrontbody
heightand width routinelyseen in PKG-styleimages is surfaces.
actually a sensible symmetricalcombinationof these
otherwisediscontinuousviews. The necessityofuniting parentlyincorrectproportionson which it is based (see
the two views fromabove and below the intervening fig.7).
mass ofthe woman's pregnantabdomenapparentlypro- 4. Inferiorlateral or lower side of body. When one
duced the recurrent"lozenge composition"and the ap- rotates at the hips and raises the arm to look down
obliquely in frontof the shoulder,one sees the side of
the body as expandingfromthe lower torsotowardthe
I5. These large,elongatednavels are foundon the relieffigure
withthe hornfromLaussel,Italianfigurines fromSavignanoand buttocks beforecontractingas the eye encountersthe
Chiozza, the famousWillendorfstatuette,the Dolni Vestonice moredistantrectusfemorisand vastus lateralismuscles
"blackVenus"no. i, theMoravanystatuette, and Kostenkistatu- of the thighand the bulginggastrocnemiusof the calf.
ettes I, 3, and 83-2 (AbramovaI967a:pl. IS; DelporteI993a:fig. The feetmay or may not be visible,oftenbeingoccluded
43, 97, 99, I28, I3I, i6i, and I74). by the interveningbody,particularlythe morerearward
I6. The well-preserved statuettesfromWillendorf and Lespugue
are the only intact examples of this arm treatment(Delporte the angle of regard.The apparentcantileveringof the
I993a:fig. i9, I28), althoughsimilaratrophied armsmightbe pre- rectus femorisin frontof the lower gastrocnemiusis
servedin brokenpieces fromLake Trasimeno(Graziosiig6o:fig. identical with the "bent-knee"postureseen in numer-
8) and Brassempouy (DelporteI993a:fig. io). Graziosisaw similar ous otherwiseerectUpper Paleolithic images of the hu-
"puny arms foldedover the breasts"of the Savignanofigurine
(i960:52), but I challengehis interpretation oftheoriginal. man figure(see fig.8). This oblique outline ofthe lower
I 7. The best-preserved exampleofunrealistically smallfeetis stat- side not onlycoincideswiththe arrangement ofmuscles
uetteno. 3 fromKostenkii. Althoughtheanterior portionsofthe seen in this regionforPKG-styleimages,but its content
feetoftheWillendorf statuetteare broken,theyappearoriginally is identical with the informationcontained in the so-
to havebeenofcomparablediminutive size. The Monpazierfigure
has similarminusculealbeitdamagedfeet,and thesame seemsto
called buttocks or profileimage which dominates the
be thecase forAvdeevonos. 76, 77-I, and 77-2 (Clottesand Cerou Magdalenian (RosenfeldI977:90; Bosinski and Fischer
I970:fig. i; Delporte I993a:fig. 93a, I28, I83-85). I974; Bosinski i99I). The typicalabsence of the upper

MC DERMOTT in Female Figurines1243
Self-Representation
FIG.8. Autogenous visual informationoflower side of body. Top, photographicsimulation of modern woman's
view; bottom,same view of Willendorfno. i (cast).
body, shoulders,arms, and head fromthe visual field aspects of the back into sight,or to crane one's neck to
when one looks down upon the inferiorlateral surface look back over the shoulder.It is the autogenousform
ofthe bodyis congruentwith theirconspicuousabsence and content of these two approaches which renders
in this later categoryof image. comprehensibletwo categoriesof supposed anatomical
5. Inferiorposteriorsurface of body. There are only distortionspreviouslyrecognizedin PKG-stylefemale
two ways to bringthe remainingdorsal surfacesof the images (see fig. 9): the rarely encountered rearward
body into directvision-either by continuingto rotate or posteriorfattyenlargementof the buttocksproperly
the line of sightunderthe arm,thus bringingthe caudal called steatopygiaand the farmore commonlyencoun-

a b
C ~~~~~~~d
FIG. 9. Tracingsofphotographsof PKG-stylefigurinesseen fromabove, showinglateral displacement
ofposteriormasses (a, c, d) and rearwardprojection(b). From Grimaldi,a, "yellow steatite statuette";
b, "punchinello"; c, "lozenge"; fromBrassempouy,d,"daggerhandle."
tered lateral deposits of adipose tissue resemblingfat the complete occlusion of the buttocksbelow the tail-
thighsor ridingjodhpursknown as steatotrochanteria or bone, and this is the key to understandingan even more
steatomeria (DuhardI988, I99I; RegnaultI924). enigmaticdistortionfoundfartherwest-the represen-
s a. Under-the-arm ex- tation of supposedly "upside down" buttocks (Luquet
views. Dependingon the effort
pended in rotatingand lookingunderthe arm,the view I934:434-35). In the well-knownivoryfigurine from
will eitherbe limited to a lateral segmentof the lower Lespugue,the figurinein yellow steatitefromGrimaldi,
back above the sacral triangle(tailbone)or,with greater the shatteredivorytorso fromBrassempouyknown as
exertion,may also include a foreshortenedoutline of the "daggerhandle," and a fragmentof firedclay found
the upperbuttockbelow the tailbone. With or without by Klima at Pavlov, a bar or bridgeof materialpresum-
maximumrotation,theview ofthisregionwill be domi- ably representingthe tailbone lies below the apparent
nated by the lateralbulge of the gluteimedii,while the gluteal cleavage separating the buttocks rather than
more distal glutei maximi are eitheroccluded entirely above as would be anatomicallycorrect(see figs.3a, c).
(with minimal rotationaleffort)or seen only as a fore- From a self-viewingperspective,what has been seen as
shortenedfragment(with greaterrotational exertion). the gluteal cleavage between the buttocksemergesin-
Thus, judgingby thepositionofthe sacral triangle,what stead as the furrowof the lower spine separatingthe
have oftenbeen seen as unnaturallylarge,elevatedbut- lateral glutei medii. The actual gluteal grooveand the
tocks are in factrealisticrenderingsof the gluteimedii, buttocks proper,which objectively extend below the
properlypositionedabove instead of below the tailbone tailbone,have not been representedat all, since theyare
in the self-viewingvisual field. in fact completelyoccluded in anythingless than the
Intergroupvariationin the rotationaleffortexpended maximumpossible rotationofthe head and eyes to look
in self-inspectioncould thus explain not only the gen- underthe arm.Figurineswithwhat appearto be "upside
eral lateral displacementof mass that has been called down" buttocks actually correctlyrepresentwhat can
steatotrochanteria or steatomeriabut the observedcon- be seen in an under-the-arm view. As with pieces with-
tinuumofregionalvariationin this "condition"as well. out facesand withforearmswhich disappearunderneath
Many Russian pieces appear to have unnaturallylong the breasts,the generalprincipleseems to be thatwhat
loins, flanks,or glutei medii above the sacral triangle cannot be seen tends not to be represented.
and atrophiedor disproportionately shortbuttocksbe- An intermediateregionalvariationin self-inspection
low (Leroi-GourhanI968a:520), as would be consistent routines of the posterioris perhaps preservedin the
with considerablerotationaleffort.Less effortproduces arbitraryhorizontal notch located immediatelyabove

the bottomedge of the atrophied"buttocks" of the Ve- sons between the originalartifacts(or theircasts) and
nus of Willendorf.This blunt geometricfeature,which one's own anatomy is the ideal procedure.(Caution is
makes no anatomical sense fromanypointofview other urged to avoid injuryto joints and muscles unaccus-
than the self-viewing,'8 is opticallytransformed into a tomed to such maneuvers.)I predictthat,when others
highly naturalistic foreshortenedimage of the lower have viewed the better-preserved and "finished"PKG-
back above a properlypositionedtailbone carriedabove style pieces fromthe point of view that only women
an oblique sliverof foreshortened buttocks(see fig.io). have of theirown bodies, theywill see, as I have, a real-
5b. Over-the-shoulderview. Finally, a more diffi- ism in representationwhich sometimesapproachessci-
cult and presumablyless frequentroute of dorsal self- entific exactitude. This isomorphic relationshipwith
inspectioninvolves sharplyrotatingthe head, thrusting natureis best seen when the masses of both prehistoric
the chin over the shoulderand peeringobliquelydown- images and contemporary women are viewed fromcom-
ward out of the cornerof the eye. It is this view which parablycircumscribed"oblique" angles of "self"-regard.
accountsforthe steatopygousformoffattyenlargement. I perceivethe strongestrealismwhen the pieces are held
In an over-the-shoulder view the dual masses ofthe glu- relativelyclose to the eyes so thatthe autoscopicprojec-
tei maximi projectrearwardfromthe bodyinto the field tion of one's own body is wholly or in part replaced
as in steatopygia,completewith the deep gluteal cleav- by that representedby the figurine.This "masking" or
age separatingthe buttocks,seen in works fromSavig- "replacement" possibilityaffordsa point of departure
nano and Grimaldi ("the punchinello") and Monpazier forfuturestudies.
(see fig. 9, b). Again what had been puzzling extremes From a self-viewingperspective,PKG-stylefigurines
of human anatomybecome surprisingly realisticwhen represent normally proportionedwomen of average
consideredfromthe probablepointofview employedby weightat different stages in theirbiological lives. They
theircreators(see fig.i i). Thus, PKG-styleimages show constitutea formof self-portrait executedmillenniabe-
the most consistent realism or organic verisimilitude fore the invention of mirrors.What has been seen as
when conscientiouslyexaminedfroma retinalangleand evidenceofobesityor adiposityis actuallytheforeshort-
distancethatmimics those requiredforinspectingone's eningeffectof self-inspection(McDermottI988). Thus,
own body. What have been seen as gross corpulence, the autogenous hypothesisis in basic agreementwith
puzzling anatomical omissions, and exaggerateddistor- the life-cyclerealism perceivedin this class of artifacts
tions become instead orderlyconventionsforrepresent- (e.g.,Duhard I993a, b; Rice I98I) but requiresviewers
ing the foreshortened configuration ofsubjectiveoptical to rotate theirpoint of view approximatelygo'. When
reality. properlyviewed, stylisticor structuralregularitiessuch
as the generalizedatrophyof the upperand lower body
of the "lozenge composition" emerge as the function
Conclusion of a common creativeprocess determinedby the fixed
position of the eyes. It is possible that the multiplevis-
The evidence supportingthe autogenous hypothesisis tas requiredby self-viewing are preservedin thedifferent
striking,but furtherexamination of this hithertoig- stages of unfinishedpieces as well as in the boundaries
nored categoryof informationis requiredto establish definingother categoriesof partial human figuresen-
its ultimatevalidityand scope. The basic experimental counteredin the Upper Paleolithic. Stylisticvariability
question remains simple. Is the physical point of view observed in figurineswithin and between PKG-style
representedin PKG-stylefemalefigurinesthatof selfor sites and regions,in contrast,would be thelogical conse-
other?Here at least is a hypothesiswhich can be tested, quence not onlyofwomen's ages and reproductive histo-
althoughcertainevidence should be treatedcautiously. ries but of the probablemorphologicaldiversitydistin-
Camera lenses, forexample, have propertiesnot found guishingindividualsand groups,the phase ofpregnancy
in the human eye (and vice versa),and directcompari- represented,and variations in self-inspectionroutines
(e.g.,the over-the-shoulder view) withinthe autogenous
paradigm.
i 8. The rediscovery ofsix statuettesoriginally
excavatedbyJullien Ifthe attributesof PKG-styleimages realisticallycor-
fromthe Grimaldicaves (Bissonand Bolduc I994) highlights re- respondwith the point of view employedby theircre-
gionalvariationsin thisview. In threeofthesepieces (specimens
C, D, and F), as well as thepiece in yellowsteatitein theMus6e ators,then the apparentexaggerationand distortionof
des Antiquit6sNationalesat Saint-Germain-en-Laye since I896, certain body parts and the reductionand omission of
the verticalgrooveor depressionapparently separatingthe but- others cannot be assumed the result of eitheraccident
tocks widens at its lower end into a small gougedpit or "cu- or arbitrarychoice. The elegance with which an auto-
pule" at the approximate positionofthe anus (Bissonand Bolduc genicfeminineviewpointrequiresthese exact attributes
I994:462, 463, 465; DelporteI993a:IoI). Suchpitscouldsymbol-
ize theanusin a generalway,althoughtheycertainly do notrepre- stands in dramatic contrast to previous speculations
sentit in anynaturalistic fashion.Whenviewedfromabove,how- about theirmotivation.Evidence indicativeof one-of-a-
ever,thisdepressionin theGrimaldiyellowsteatitepiecevisually kind accidentsand arbitrary symboland ritualwill have
metamorphoses into the recessedarea formedby the lowerspine to be soughtelsewherethan in the attributesof the im-
and thedimpleofthecoccygealorsacraltriangle, properlylocated
above foreshortened buttocks.This imageis verysimilarto that ages themselves.At the same time,the representational
createdbythemoregeometric notchin thebackoftheWillendorf accuracy of art in later historicalperiods does not pre-
statuette(see fig.io). clude its having had a symbolicfunction.Yet, if PKG-

FIG. IO. Autogenous visual informationof buttocksas seen under the arm. Top, photographicsimulation
of modern woman's view; bottom,same view of Willendorfno. i (cast).

in Female Figurines 247
FIG. I I. Photographic simulation of modern woman's view of buttocks as seen over the shoulder.
FIG. i i. Photographicsimulation ofmodern woman's vi'ewof buttocksas seen over the shoulder.
style images are self-portraits centered on individual occurredduringthe Upper Paleolithic.Puberty,menses,

reproductiveevents, the assumption that they repre- coitus, conception,pregnancy,childbirth,and lactation
sent abstractideas such as the worshipof a prehistoric are regularevents in the female cycle and involve per-
mothergoddess must be reexamined. ceptible "time-factored"alterationsin bodily function
The realism of formand content seen in PKG-style and configuration(Marshack iggia:282). Accurate ob-
images when properlyviewed suggestsa materialisthy- stetricaland gynecologicalknowledgebenefitswomen
pothesisforwhy our species firstbegan to make images today and can be presumedto have done so duringthe
of the human figureand what functiontheyoriginally Upper Paleolithic.New observationsabout the female's
served. As accurate representationalimages of the fe- procreativerole, such as improvedtechniques of child-
male body at differentstages of development,they birthor a more reliablemethodforcalculatingthe time
storedand preservedinformationabout biological pro- of delivery,would have had the practicalimprovement
cesses unique to the lives of women. No answerto the of women's lives to advertiseits spread. That women
absence ofmale sculpturesfromthe PKG horizoncould gained increased control over theirreproductivedesti-
be more parsimoniousthan thatwomen firstdeveloped nies duringthe Upper Paleolithicis suggestedby the de-
human image making as accurate recordsof physical cline in representations
ofpregnancy(Duhard I993a:88)
changes they alone experiencedand presumablycon- seen betweenGravettian(68%) and Magdalenianimages
trolled. (36%). It seems highlypossible that the emergenceand
The needs of health and hygiene,not to mention propagationof PKG-styleimages east and west across
childbirth,ensurethatfeminineself-inspection actually Europe occurredbecause theyplayed a didactic role in

the conscious masteryofthematerialconditionsunique iggo]; it is probablyimpossible now to be sure of the

to women's reproductivelives. authenticityof the "Venus" of the Abri Pataud; and
A femininemotivation and functionfor PKG-style therehave always been misgivingsabout the Grimaldi
images raises the logical possibilitythatthe dispersalor figurines-Bisson and Bolduc [I994] are admirablyopen
diffusionmechanisms responsiblefortheirspreadlike- and objective about the latter'suncertainties,and con-
wise reflectthe perspectiveof women. Furthermore, if vincingevidenceis still awaited.)However,while focus-
PKG-styleimages of the human figurewere createdand ing on the Central and Easternspecimens,McDermott
disseminatedby women, it is also possible that PKG- inexplicablyomits the astonishing"Dancing Venus of
styleand Aurignaciansculpturesofanimals,which em- Galgenberg"(Neugebauer-Mareschi988), althoughit is
ploy similar materials and techniques,were createdby probablythe oldest known female figurineof its kind
women. The evidence of the autogenous hypothesis in Europe.The supposedlymale figurinefromAvdeevo,
thus raises the possibilitythatwomen led in representa- tentativelymentionedin the paper,is extremelydoubt-
tional image makingduringthe earlyand middleUpper ful: its gender has been interpreted,somewhat tenu-
Paleolithic and should probablybe creditedwith intro- ously, from its musculature and posture ratherthan
ducingthis importantculturalactivity. fromsexual characteristics(GvozdoverI995:23).
Finally,the autogenoushypothesisraises questionsof Turningto the theory:ifI understandMcDermottcor-
individual and collective developmentwhose theoreti- rectly,he is claiming that all of these figurineswere
cal significanceneeds to be mentioned(see McCoid and produced as self-portraits by female carvers,many of
McDermott n.d.). If self was the armatureupon which thempregnant,and all apparentlyignoringthe bodies of
the firstimage of humanitywas constructed,when and those around them and relyingexclusively-for thou-
how did images based on the appearanceof otherssup- sands ofyears-on the distortedviews theycould obtain
plant those based on self?What changesin culturallife bypeeringdown at theirown. There are numerousprob-
were responsibleforthis fundamentalchange in repre- lems with this notion. First,it is as sexist to claim that
sentationalfocus? Also, since the importantrole once all these images were made bywomen as it is to assume
played by autogenous informationin human cultural that they were all producedby men. I have repeatedly
life appears to have been overlooked,modern philo- (e.g., Bahn I986, Bahn and Vertut i988) criticisedthe
sophical and psychologicalconcepts of individual self- traditionalandrocentricview that these figurineswere
awareness and the internalizationof self-imagemay all made by men for men, as erotica or suchlike; but
need revision.19 McDermott'squestion-"If men were involvedin creat-
ing human images at this time, why are virtuallyno
males represented? "-is irrelevant. With tongue in
cheek, one mightenvisage archaeologistsof the future
Comments posing the same question about 2oth-centurymaga-
zines, since our glossy publications forboth men and
women are heavily dominated by images of women!
PAUL G. BAHN One simplycannot assign a sex to the creatorsof these
428 Anlaby Rd., Hull HU3 6QP, England. io X 95 Palaeolithicimages on the basis oftheircontent-to as-
sume that they were all women instead of all men
The thesis of this paper struckme as an originaland merely swings the pendulum to the other extreme,
intriguingidea, but on reflectionit simplywon't fitthe whereas it should be in the middle. We do not and
bill. It was certainlywise of the authorto restricthim- cannot know theirsex. It is all the more preposterous,
self to the relativelywell-provenancedand dated figu- therefore, forMcDermott to proceed fromthereto the
rinesfromCentraland EasternEurope(Abramovai995), possibility that Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettian and
thoughhis occasional referencesto figurinesfromwest- Aurignaciansculpturesof animals were also all created
ernEuropeignorethe graveproblemswhich beset some by women. This is, of course, theoreticallypossible-
of them-not merelytheirlack of solid provenanceand but then,so too is the old androcentricview.
datingbut also the possibilitythat some of them may McDermottseems to be tryingto supporthis hypothe-
well be fake (Bahn I993). (For example,doubt has been sis offemaleartistsby the suggestionthatthese images
cast on some of the Brassempouyfigurines[Niedhorn are accurate self-portraitsof (mostlypregnant)women
seen fromabove. This view confrontsthe same obstacles
as that of Duhard (i995), in which some parts of the
ig. Moderncognitiveself-images incorporate me-
technologically figurinesare physiologicallyrealistic but others are
diated visual information, includingthat frommirrors,even schematic or stylized.McDermott considersthe whole
thoughsuchstimuliwouldnothavebeenavailableduringtheevo-
lutionofthebrain.This observationis importantbecausethePKG image to show "a realismin representation whichsome-
stylesuggeststhatautogenousvisual information once playeda times approaches scientificexactitude." One wonders,
behavior.The contribution
greaterrole in self-conscious of two first,why artistsof so long ago should have been con-
sourcesof visual information
different to our modernself-image cerned with such precision, which is surely an ex-
may explainwhynormalwomenas well as thosesuffering from
eatingdisorderssuch as anorexianervosaconsistently overesti- tremely modern feature. Second, it appears all the
matethewidthoftheirown bodies(Bozzi I988, Slade and Russell women must have producedthe images while standing
I973). up, so thattheycould keep lookingdown at theirbodies

Self-Representation
fromdifferent angles, which strikesone as somewhat the notion that an immediatevisual templateis neces-
implausible. saryto sculpt an image. Direct observationof a model
Finally, McDermott's theoryis particularlyuncon- while workingshould not be necessary.ElaborateUpper
vincingin its attemptto explain the abbreviatednature Paleolithicstonetechnologydemonstratesthe cognitive
of the bodies' limbs: "in looking down with arms at capacity to make objects on the basis of remembered
the side, a woman does see only the foreshortened front mentaltemplatesratherthandirectcopying,and sculpt-
surfaceof her upper arm"; "when arm and hands are ing fromrememberedformis certainlythe case in ani-
crossed over the breasts,they presenttheirnarrowest mal depictions. The Vogelherd mammoth and horse
aspect to the eye in an edge-onview"; "the lower body probablydid not stand fortheirportraits.
and feet are opticallycorrectforthe point of view em- The second assumptionis that the sculpturesare all
ployed in their representation";and "for a pregnant self-portraits. Althoughpossible, this is fundamentally
woman,inspectionofthe upper'half' ofthe bodytermi- speculative. That some of the best-knownspecimens
nates at the navel." This all sounds highlyunlikely.It have attributes appearing to be derived from self-
is not difficultat any time to see one's arms and hands inspectioncannot,withoutresortto circularreasoning,
and to know theirtrueshape,size, and proportions.Sim- be turnedinto the generalizationthatall must therefore
ilarly,when one is sittingdown (and I would assume be self-portraits. Competinghypothesesviewingthe un-
that most figureswere carved by sittingor squatting usual body proportionsas a symbolic code are equally
artists,since the process is long and arduous),one can probable.
see one's thighs,calves, and feet extremelywell, and McDermott also assumes an unrealisticadherenceto
even the most heavilypregnantwoman must remember a rigid,erect posture to explain the misperceptionsof
what her lower extremitieslooked like, even ifshe, like scale presentin these statuettes.Feet and legs do appear
all the otherartists,was totallyignoringthe bodies of reducedin size relativeto the torsowhen viewed while
everyonearoundher!If,as McDermottclaims, "any im- standing,but their correctproportionsare readilyevi-
age of self as an independentthree-dimensionalentity dent when sitting.The same is true forforearmsand
must be the mental combinationor integrationofthose hands, which are probably the most frequentlyseen
multiple viewpoints possible for direct visual self- partsof the body and appear foreshortened only if held
inspection,"thenwhydo these not include theperfectly at the sides. Ifthe autogenoushypothesisis correct,then
easy viewpointsof the body's extremities? commonly observedfeaturessuch as hands should be
In short,one can at most accept that self-inspection prominentratherthan rare.I findit inconceivablethat
may perhaps have contributedto some figurinesand UpperPaleolithicpeople wereunawareoftheirown attri-
may possiblyhave led to stylisticconventionsthatwere butes fromobservationsof theirown bodies in different
adopted and copied formillennia. But I am totallyun- posturesand of the bodies of otherhumans.
convincedthat all these figureswere carvedby upright The final assumption is that without technological
pregnantwomen who were onlyinterestedin thephoto- assistance the self-viewingperspectiveis the only way
graphicallyaccurate reproductionof certain parts of an Upper Paleolithic person could develop a self-image
theirbodies as seen fromparticularangles. I believe the and that this explains the absence of facial featuresand
self-inspectionidea is an interestingfootnoteto the misshapenheads on manyofthe sculptures.Reflections
studyof femalefigurines,not the revelationof a funda- in water are distortedif the observeris standing,but
mental factorin theirproduction. bendingover a calm pool to drinkproducesan accurate
image of the face and upperbody.Likewise,ifsculptors
were having to contorttheir bodies to see their own
MICHAEL S. BISSON buttocks,then it is hard to believe that theywould not
DepartmentofAnthropology, McGill University,855 have simply crossed theireyes brieflyto see theirown
SherbrookeSt. W., Montreal,Quebec, Canada H3A noses.
2T7. 5 x 95 Hair, althoughoutside the visual field,is frequently
depicted on the sculptures.This importantcontradic-
This paper joins a growinglist of works advocating tion to the autogenoushypothesisis ascribedto tactile
new perspectives for interpretingUpper Paleolithic knowledge.A similarargumentis made forthe enlarged
Gravettian-style femalefigurinesand seeingthemas ob- and open vulva common on but not restrictedto Italian
jects made by and forwomen. McDermottis to be com- specimens. This bringsthe critical question into clear
mendedforsuggestingnew ways to view these interest- focus. If tactile knowledge allowed some unobserved
ing and controversial artifacts.At first glance the featuresto be depicted, then why not facial features,
self-inspection perspectivewould seem to explainmany which, being the most distinctiveindividualcharacter-
of the departuresof these sculpturesfromnaturalistic istics, should be included in a self-portrait?
attributesand bodyproportions.Unfortunately, thishy- The most reasonable explanationforthis is not the
pothesis is based on a series of assumptions that are observationalconstraintsof the self-inspection perspec-
unrealistic.It also minimizes the significanceof vari- tive but culturallyconditionedchoice. This is hintedat
abilityin facial,hair,and genitalattributesthatdoes not when differences are attributedto "regionalvariations."
fitthe hypothesis. Ifchoice was exercisedin creatingthesesculptures,then
Four assumptionsunderliethis interpretation. Firstis the presence or absence of featuresmust have cultural

meaning. An excellent example of this can be seen in cial significance.This not only is a useful counterpoint
the patternsof facial morphologyamong the Grimaldi to the androcentrictheoriesconcisely outlinedby Mc-
sculpturesthat are unambiguouslyfemale. The seven Dermottbut also challengesthe view that these figures
specimenswithovoid heads have no facialfeaturesother mightonly symbolisebroadnon-personalconceptssuch
than a hairline.Two crudelyfashionedspecimenshave as fertilityor motherhoodand that theywere produced
dorsoventrally compressedheads with incisionsforeyes to conformto standardisedconventions.This will be
and mouthsas well as distincthairlines.The finalpiece, an attractivepropositionforthose seeking to engender
the "double figurine,"possesses a flattenedtriangular archaeology,as well as those such as Knight (I991;
head with a distinctmouth and probablyother facial Knight,Power, and Watts I995) who offerbehavioural
featuresthat were violentlyremovedin antiquity(Bis- hypothesesto account forwhat theyregardas the "sym-
son and Bolduc I994). Because I believe these specimens bolic revolution"of the Upper Paleolithic.However,as
to have been producedovera time span exceeding5,ooo McDermottadmits,his hypothesishas not been system-
years (Bisson,Tisnerat,and White I996) this patterning aticallytestedand relieson casual referenceto themate-
is best interpretedas reflectingthe changingsymbolic rial and the absence or,at least, rarityofmale represen-
significanceof the face over time. The autogenoushy- tations in this period for support.This is a drawback
pothesis,which suggestsunchangingperceptionsof the which bids us be cautious.
body,fails to accommodate this typeof variation. Consideringthe autogenous theory,it may be said
Although I disagree with the general application of thatit seems to workwell withtheWillendorfi figurine
the hypothesis,it may be useful in interpreting some and some otherssuch as Avdeevo 2 and 78, Gagarinoi,
specimens. For different reasons, I agree with McDer- Kostenki i-I figures3 and 4, and the yellow steatiteex-
motton the likelihoodthatmanyofthesefigurines were amplefromGrimaldi(DelporteI993:I24, I69, I74, I76,
made by women and referto reproduction. I63, and ioo, respectively),whereas in otherexamples
self-inspectionmightbe said to have had an influence,
althoughthe model does not fitclosely. Avdeevo 77-I
JILL COOK and 77-2 and Kostenkii-I and i and 2 (DelporteI993:
Departmentof Prehistoricand Romano-British I73, i62) show natural,observedprofiles,as do the tor-
Antiquities,QuaternarySection,BritishMuseum, sos from Petrkovice and Eliseevitch (pp. I48, I83).
Franks' House, 3 8-46 Orsman Rd., London NI 5QJ, Equally, althoughself-viewingmay contributeto char-
England. 2o x 95 acteristicssuch as theprotuberant buttocksofthe "pun-
chinello" fromGrimaldi or the Savignanopiece or the
Seekingthe significanceof femalefigurinesin the mid- flatteningin pieces such as the perforated Grimaldifig-
dle Upper Palaeolithic is a quixotic adventurein which ure or the tall figuresincludingAvdeevo i and Gagarino
McDermottproveshimselfto be a worthy,indeed chiv- 3 (pp. I03, I09, I02, I69, and I77, respectively), it does
alrous knight.Drawing a veil over sex and liftingthe not satisfactorilyaccount for all their qualities. This
burdenof fertilityor motherhoodsymbolism,he gives must also apply to Lespugue and Dolni Vestonice i (pp.
Stone Age women control over their own bodies and 35, I38); the latter must surely have been observed
epitomises their realityin the natural self-representa- face-on.Similarly,it does not suit the possible birthing
tion of theirsoftcurvesand fullfigures.Is he dreaming, figuresfromSireuil and Tursac (Duhard I993c) and pos-
or is his quest successful? sibly Kostenki I3 (Delporte I993:i68). Further,McDer-
Despite attemptsto subordinatePKG-stylefigurines mottignoresthe moreenigmaticfemalerepresentations
to taxonomicformulae(GvozdoverI989, Leroi-Gourhan suchas Dolni VestoniceI2-I4 and Predmosti (pp.I40,
I968a) or to suggestthat theirimportancelies in a par- I49-50), whichclearlydo not fitthe theory.It is also
ticular aspect such as the depiction of their genitalia evident although not necessarily problematicfor the
(Marshack iggib), it is evident to anyone who looks theory that, in addition to hairstyles,the shoulder
at these representationsthat each one is unique. The straps,back and waistbands,and apronson some figures
possibilitythat each one mightalso representan actual are drawnas observedby anotherperson;otherwisethey
individualhas been encouragedby researchsuch as that would appearas short,disconnectedstrips.In short,the
of Duhard (I99oa, I993b), which providesanalogues for autogenoustheorymightbe said to correspondto a gen-
the physicalformsdepictedbut evidentlyregardsthem eral idea of what PKG-stylefigurineslook like, but this
as depictionsmade by others (e.g.,Duhard I993c:290). perceptionis in itselfremarkablybiased by the greater
McDermottgoes one step fartherand suggeststhatthey familiarityof the Willendorfi figureand belies the real
This echoes the alreadywidely diversitypresent.
are self-representations.
held view that these figuresare not only about women In an attemptto strengthen his case, McDermottuses
(Cook n.d., Delporte I993, Duhard I993b, Marshack the absence or rarity of male figuresin Pavlovian-
iggib, Rice I98I) and extends it to suggestthat they Kostenkian-Gravettiancontexts to emphasise a gyno-
mayhave been made bywomen forwomen because self- centricinterpretation.His assessment of the evidence
representationwould imply that any intendedsymbol- would probablymeet with generalagreement,although
ism was inherentin or particularto the woman de- it is surprisingto find the Aurignacianstatuettefrom
picted, perhaps being her totem, and that the act of Hohlenstein-Stadelincludedin theargument.This piece
reproducingherselfin figurineformmay also have spe- is outside the period under considerationboth chrono-

MC DERMOTT in Female Figurines|
Self-Representation 25I
logicallyand stylistically.Whetherthe heavilyrestored appearances." In principle,shadows, full-or part-body

head is that of a lion or a lioness is equivocal, and the imprintsin soil, sand, or snow, and the "trace" of the
same may be said of the sexual characteristics.The body's shape and dimensions carriedin the formsof
stance and muscularityof the figurecertainlydistin- clothingcould all providesuch information.Transcrib-
guishit fromPKG-stylefemalefiguresbut comparewell ingit would have resultedin a two-or three-dimensional
with otherAurignacianfiguressuch as the Galgenberg image somewhat different froma purelyself-regarding
"dancer" or themuch smallerivorybas-relieffromGeis- one. But the figurinesare clearly not wholly self-
senklosterle.However,it mightalso be noted thatthere regardinganyway; they include formalrecognitionof
are some similaritiesbetween Hohlenstein-Stadeland bodyparts (such as the top and back of the head or the
theBrnofigurewhich McDermotttentativelyacceptsas lower portionof a "swollen" belly or abdomen) that it
male in the formof the genitalareas. The Laussel figure is impossible to see in this way. They are certainlynot
is probably best regardedas sexually ambiguous, al- sculptural transcriptionsof any single self-regarding
thoughforan adolescent female it would have Amazo- view; though McDermott says little about how the
nian proportions.As for the supposed Pavlovian head "multiple" views were "combined," the principle of
referred to hereby the reference"Marshack (I988)," rec- paratactic coherence was not itself self-regarding. (By
ordsmade at the BritishMuseum when this object was definition it requires adopting an outside vantage
offeredforsale in I948 show that evidence was found point-not necessarilyequivalentto anyreal standpoint
indicatingthat it was made recentlyon ancient ivory. in the world-from which an externalobject is viewed;
These details aside, the absence ofmale representations forthe overall view presentedby the whole figurineto
does not preclude male interestin, or manufactureof, be self-regarding,the makerwould have to be somewhat
femalefiguresand should not be taken as supportfora floatingoutside and all around herself.)In making a
uniquely female originand use. It mightalso be useful "self-portrait,"in otherwords, the subjectivemust be
to considerwhethersome of these figuresincorporate objectified.Clearlyany objectificationof the selfcan be
both male and female sexual references(see, forexam- obedientto the demands of others.Thus it remainsan
ple, the profilesof Willendorf2, Dolni Vestonice2, and open question whetherand how self-inspectiondata-
Khotylevoi and the mammothmetapodialfiguresfrom let alone subjectiverealityin relationto social expecta-
inDelporte
Predmosti I993:I35, I43, I85, andIo5). tion-were coordinatedwith data fromothersourcesin
Overall,it may be said that,combinedwith Duhard's the makingof the figurines.
approachto realism(I 993b, c, I995), awarenessofthe 2. McDermottcomes perilouslyclose to indulgingone
self-regarding view offersa valuable way of looking at of the hoariest fallacies of art criticism-namely, the
and appreciatingthe figures.However,it cannotbe used idea thatimage makerssimplycopythe image projected
to engenderthe interpretationof these objects, as it on the retina of their (own) eyes, the question being
lacks any appreciationoftheircontext,associations,and what that image is (e.g.,an image of one's own body,of
distribution(Cook n.d.). As it stands,the theoryneeds otherobjects,etc.). It is possible to producea reasonably
more testingand supportto avoid being cast as an aca- convincingtwo-dimensionalsimulacrumor illusion of
demic outcome of 2oth-century social evolutionjust as one's own retinalimage; reproducedon a contactlens,
predictableas Efimenko'sfindingfemale ancestor im- it could exactly "mask" the actual view, in somewhat
ages at the heart of a matrilinealclan organizationin the way McDermott suggeststhe figurinescould have
keepingwith the theoriesof Morganand Engels. been held to "mask" the real body.But this simulacrum
is not the autogenous retinal image itself.It can only
be a mediated copy-transcription producedaccordingto
WHITNEY DAVIS techniques of "fabrication"that McDermott tells us
DepartmentofArt History,NorthwesternUniversity, nothing about. No doubt the fabricatormight intend
Evanston,Ill. 60208, U.S.A. 9 x 95 that the copy-imagetranscribea self-vieweduniverse;
to that extent,we can say it is autogenous. But does
This innovative paper offersan intriguinghypothesis not even need the retinal image to make the picture?
about one source of the iconographyof Paleolithic "fe- Moreover,nothingpreventsan autogenous view from
male figurines."For the purposeofthis comment,I will being produced throughtactile examination,mensura-
accept McDermott's remarksabout the chronology,dis- tion,induction,and so on-just as a perspectivepicture
tribution,and styleofthe figurines.He suggeststhatthe can be constructed artificially(rather than through
three-dimensional formof the figureswas derivedfrom direct transcriptionof the retinal image of binocular
self-generated and self-regarding
visual information.
The stereoscopicvision). McDermott providesno criterion
visual parallel between some such views and some as- for distinguishingvisual fictions of a self-inspection
pects of the formof the figurinesis quite strong,but view-it may or may not have been conductedby the
McDermott's explanation-that the figurines"consti- "self" on itself-from the retinal images generatedin
tute a formof self-portrait"-isnot the only possible self-viewingas theywere supposedlycopied (but how?)
one. by that veryviewer. Althoughthe two types of image
i. It is not true that "beforerepresentationalart or could be morphologicallyindiscernible,only the latter
mirrors"one could inspect only his or her own bodyor is necessarilyan image made by the "self" of its own
that of anotherperson for "informationabout human body.It is fascinatingto suppose thatPaleolithicartarti-

ficiallyconstructedfictively"autogenous" views-just ing in the perceptionand representationof it by other

as Renaissance painters artificiallyconstructedfictive people (Lacan I977). I am sympatheticto the attempt
perspectives-but this is a point quite different from analyticallyto discover the ego's representationsof it-
McDermott's. self as it is grounded in its own actual lifeworld-
Key,here,is the factthat once we introducea neces- distinguishing betweenegocentricity and "subjectivity"
sarystage of copy-transcription into the fabricationpro- should be one of the primeinterestsof currentanthro-
cess, we also partlydetach the image fromits suppos- pologyand arthistory(see Damisch I994, Davis I994)-
edly original autogenous "source." It now becomes a but ifthereis such a representationit cannotbe conven-
pictorialconventionavailable forreproduction, revision, tional. Although McDermott does not fullydeal with
and manipulationbothby the "self" and bymanyother the relation of ego and subject or of self and other,in
users. The corpus of figurinesis nothingif not conven- his suggestiveanalysis he does directlyraise the ques-
tionalized. Justas thereare many ways in which "fron- tion forstudentsof prehistoricculture.
tal" and "profile"depictionsofpartsofthe human body
can be combinedbut Egyptianartreproducesone typical
combination
(seeDavis i989:io-29), SO therearemany HENRI DELPORTE
ways in which "multiple" self-regarding views could be ii,rue d'Hennemont,78IOOSt. Germain-en-Laye,
combined but Paleolithic figurines,if McDermott's France. 5 x 95
claims about regularityare valid, imposed one typical
array. The studyof Paleolithic mobiliaryart has two aspects:
3. I am sceptical, it follows,that autogenousimages (i) objectively,the analysis of objects,with a broad and
were necessarilymade by the verypersonswho experi- increasinglyprecise description,and of the valuable in-
enced just those kinds of retinalimages-that the figu- dications of theirdistributionand associations,and (2)
rineswere images made by women of theirown bodies. subjectively, hypotheses about the morphology,the
Although the idea is attractive,it takes too little ac- meaning, and the motivation of those objects. For fe-
count of the mediated and intersubjectiveprocesses of male figurinesthese hypothesesare numerousand var-
representationand fabrication.At the moment,the vi- ied (Delporte I993). McDermott examines figurines
sual evidence seems to me to supporta weaker thesis: fromthe Gravettiangroup,omittingthe Mal'ta and Bu-
accordingto a general(but unknown)paratacticprinci- ret' Siberian statuettes without explanation but cer-
ple, someone combined self-inspection-derived images tainlybecause theirfigurativescheme, like that of the
of some partsofwomen's bodies-or imitationsofsuch Magdalenian,differsfromthat of the EuropeanPavlov-
images-with other informationto make a three- ian-Kostenkian-Gravettian group.One major character-
dimensional picture that is a convincingbut strongly istic of many of the femalefigurinesof the lattergroup
conventionalized visual fiction of (or for) Paleolithic is a deformationof the body involvinga hypertrophy of
women's self-imageof theirown bodies,whateversuch thepelvis regionand an atrophyofthe extremities(head,
self-images,both retinaland psychological,mightactu- legs, and feet). Leroi-Gourhan(I965, I97I) considered
ally have been (presumablytheywerequite variable).As this deformationsuggestiveof a lozenge-shapedform,
that phrasingsuggests,I would emphasize the medi- de factoand not intentionallyconstructed.In his opin-
ated-ideological, fantasmic (imaginary),symbolic- ion and thatofmanyotherresearchersincludingmyself,
natureof the imagery.McDermott rushes to inferthat this processtends to place symbolicvalue on the essen-
the images bespeak Paleolithic female image makers' tial partsofthe femalebody.Duhard (I993),forhis part,
knowledgeofand controlovertheirown bodies,particu- claims that thereis no deformation:in his professional
larly reproductiveprocesses. I will not go so far as to career as a gynecologist he has met contemporary
say that this is simplypresent-daypolitics,progressive women showingthe same so-called deformations.
though it may be, but I see nothingin McDermott's McDermott's theoryis original: that the figurines'
account that preventsus fromsupposingthat the figu- morphologydoes not arisefromsymbolismor intentbut
rineswere made by men to providedefinitiveimagesfor is optical, a translationof the image seen by the artist
women about how theirbodies-their "selves," if such when she looks down at herselfor when she turnsher
a distinctivelymodernnotion has any place in this dis- head at a go' angle. The differences in the figures'pro-
cussion at all-appear and oughtto appearto them,even portions are to be linked to the age of the artistand
fromtheirown "point of view." This interpretation is thereforeto the sexual stages of her life. This idea has
quite as consistentwith contemporary feministtheories alreadybeen expressedbyDuhard (I993) and Rice (I981).
of subjectivityas McDermott's. This theoryprovidesan explanationforbodydispropor-
4. To "represent"the "self" is to treatit as an object. tions: the reductionofthe head to a button,the absence
Whathas its originin autogenousexperience,or egocen- offacialfeatures,the reliefofthe breasts,abdomen,and
tricity,modulates into the experienceof the alienated buttocks,and the atrophyof the legs (Luquet's intellec-
social person or "subject." Perhaps romantically,Mc- tual realism). Why,then, are the arms, being so close
Dermott sees the female figurinesas expressionsof an to the head, absent or atrophied?The interestof this
unalienatedworld-a worldbeforethe "mirrorstage" in theory-which, without condemning it, I do not
which the subject is quadratedby verifying its own be- share-is that it implies that the female and perhaps

also the animal statuettes were sculpted by women, writtenby insidious sociobiological premisesand rem-
which is conceivablebut goes againstsome hypotheses, nants of androcentricvoyeurismof which even he is
especially eroticones such as Guthrie's(I984). (apparently)unaware. I limit my discussion to the ves-
Without formally opposing McDermott's ideas, I tiges of androcentricvoyeurismI find most troubling
would like to make severalpoints: and commentbrieflyon related issues of typologyand
i. The figurines from the Pavlovian-Kostenkian- classificationthat are, in my opinion,leftunresolved.
Gravettiangroupare not the oldest.In the CentralEuro- Androcentricprojectionsstill embeddedin thisautog-
pean Aurignacian,at Hohlenstein,at Geissenklosterle enous account take two forms.The firstis McDermott's
(mentionedby McDermott),and, above all, at Galgen- continualreferenceto the "normal-sized"and "average"
berg (Neugebauer-MareschI989), there are statuettes woman. What,praytell, is a normal-sizedwoman, and
that do not follow the rules of construction,symbolic whose average is the appropriateone forthis study: a
or optical, of this group. healthy,well-fed,middle-class white woman of Euro-
2. The Brno male figurinecan be dated on the basis pean descent? a minority,inner-city, poorlynourished
ofthe pit's furnishings;we will be able to attributeit to teenagerwho has experiencedone or more abortionsor
a group-maybe to the PKG-only afternondestructive miscarriages?a pregnantwoman fromSamoa? fromKe-
radiochemicalanalyseshave been conductedon it. Nev- nya?fromJapan?fromthe Basque country?How are we
ertheless,it is possible, thoughexceptional,that there to comparean "average26-year-oldmother-to-be with a
are male figurines in the Pavlovian-Kostenkian- 34C bust" with (similar?)femaleslivingextremelydif-
Gravettiangroup,forexample, the belted figurinefrom ferentlives ca. 26,ooo years B.P. in what is now the
Brassempouy,accordingto Duhard. Czech Republic,Slovakia, easternor westernRussia, or
3. McDermott is imprecise in mentioningconnec- southwesternFrance?On methodologicalgroundsI take
tions between the Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettianexceptionto McDermott's strategyofaveragingout em-
group and the Magdalenian. We have to insist on the piricalvariationand question the wisdom ofthis overly
factthatthe engravingsofLa Marche,the styleofwhich reductivebiological basis fora woman's self-perception,
is so distinctive,are only Magdalenian (Pales and de past or present.
St.-PereuseI976). Specifically,I am troubledby the way this account
4. In a friendlymanner,I would suggestto McDer- separatesbrutevisual perceptionfromthe culturallens
mott,along with otherEnglish-speaking writers,thathe throughwhich all seeing is accomplished.Much ofthis
take a look at French-speakingliterature,forexample, theoryis premisedon an art-history argumentthat so-
Leroi-Gourhan'swork, the role of which is misunder- cioeconomic and culturalcontextsmotivateand struc-
stood or, it seems to me, given insufficient attention. tureformalvocabularies,or what in archaeologyare still
called stylisticconventions.But behindthatpositionis
a corollary:thatall perceptionand representation is cul-
MARCIA-ANNE DOBRES turallymediated. This does not mean that each person
Archaeological Research Facility,Departmentof "sees" the physicalworld differently.But we do experi-
Anthropology,Universityof California,Berkeley, ence it, conceptualize it, then proceed to represent
Calif.94720-3710, U.S.A. 26 IX 95 it, depict it, and give meaning and value to it on the
basis of the various personal experiencesthat serve as
No betterargumentcould be made forthe polysemic our background interpretiveframeworks (Anderson
nature of prehistoricvisual imagerythan to inventory I979:I40-42; ForgeI970; Lewis-Williams andDowson
the number of interpretationsproposed over the past I988; WashburnI994:i02; amongmany such argu-
centuryforthe meaningand/orfunctionofthe archaeo- ments).What this means froma combinedfeministart-
logical materials dubiously called Venus figurines.In historyand psychologicalperspectiveis thata woman's
this provocativeessay McDermott adds anothernovel representationof her body is never simplyan objective
idea to that ever-growing list-a list clearlyresponsive recordingof what she physically sees when looking
to the historicallyspecificsocial, economic, and politi- down. Thus I take strongexception to the claim that
cal circumstanceswithin which prehistorianshave de- "there is no reason to suspect that informationfrom
velopedtheirideas. The mostprevalentparadigmsstruc- direct self-inspectionhas changed since the Upper
turingthese interpretationscan be groupedunder the Palaeolithic."
headings of androcentricvoyeurism,sociobiology,and What McDermott's camera recordsis not all that a
feminism(Dobres i992a, n.d.),and I findin thisaccount woman (or a man looking down at himself,I suspect)
aspects of all three. "sees." The camera cannot approximatethe interpreted
The feministaspects of McDermott's work can be sense ofcorporealselfand body,inseparablyintertwined
found in the way he highlightsfemale self-expression as they are, that necessarilyprecedes any furthercon-
and the conscious mastering(mistressing?) ofknowledge ventional renderingof it in three-dimensionalmedia
about health and related gynecologicalissues as direct such as sandstone,steatite,and clay. The camera does
movitationsfor these depictions. While I applaud his not interpretphysical realityin the way that gendered
attemptto introducesome degreeof conscious agency humans do. McDermott privilegesthe physical distor-
into the question, this attemptis nonetheless under- tions that come with looking over one's shoulder at

254 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume37, Number2, AprilI996
one's buttocksor over a protrudingbelly,but he appar- a traditionalWestern "art" frameworkin which end-
ently does not recognize that the "average" woman product-for-viewing is the typicalgoal,we mightexplore
"sees" much more and much less than this (Brooke- thepossibilitythatit was in the act ofcreatingtheimag-
Rose I986, de LauretisI987, PointonI990, Pollock ery that meaning and value was signifiedand that the
I987). Moreover,McDermott's beliefthat an "objective act of depiction and re-creationof self in anotherme-
physical perception"and "optically correctviewpoint" dium was more the intentthan what the finalformre-
about the human body based on "direct visual self- flectedabout obstetricaland gynecologicalknowledge.
inspection" is possible outside this cultural lens fails Withoutmore concernfortechnologicalissues, and not
to take into considerationthat even so-called objective forthe sake of description(as McDermott does briefly
scientific views of the (female) human body have considerthem)but as potentialclues as to the physical
changedradicallyover the past threecenturiesor more and social contexts in which their prehistoricmean-
(Foucault I975, Laqueur I990). ing(s) were also produced, we will continue to have
My second concernrelates to the generalissue of ty- novel interpretationsthat begin and end with palm-
pologyand how to cope withempiricaldiversityencoun- sized naked femalesfrozenin stone.The time has come
teredin the archaeologicalrecord,but on this pointI do to considerthe multiple layeringof possible meanings,
not think McDermott and I will ever agree. Consider- motivations,and materialconditionsinforming thepro-
able attentionis devotedto only two facetsof material ductionand use ofthese artifactsratherthanpromotea
variabilitywithin this corpus of imagery,and in both single best explanationno matterhow original.
cases the purposeis to play down theirrelevanceto the
"clear central tendency" toward lozenge-shaped fe-
males. Of course that is what this imagerydepicts,but JEAN-PIERRE DUHARD
that does not mean that associated attributessuch as i8 rue de l'Estagnas, F-64200 Biarritz,France. 7 Iv 95
raw material,its workability,intrasitespatial distribu-
tion ofrecoveredspecimens,archaeologicalcontext,and McDermott assumes that the absence of completeana-
technical details of fabrication,much less whetherthe tomical realism in the sculpturesin question is to be
imageryis portable and "palm-sized" or fixed in the explainedbytheirmode ofconception-made in the im-
landscape,should be cataloguedbut consideredanalyti- age of an individual woman by herself after self-
cally inconsequential. It is clear that what counts as examination.This brand-newtheoryshould not be re-
variability,homogeneity,and heterogeneity in archaeo- jected a priori;afterall, any innovativeidea can move
logical data is in the eye ofthe beholder.Surelyhow one us fartheralong on the path ofknowledge,and we must
goes about lumping or splittingartifactsinto arbitrary congratulateMcDermottforhis imaginativeness.It will
analytical categories depends on what the researcher not,however,come as a surpriseto anyonewho knows
wants to understand.But if the subject at hand were my work on the subject (e.g.,Duhard I989a, iggoa, b,
lithicstherewould surelybe dozens of(overlapping)cat- g99ib) that I do not quite share his point of view.
egories into which the data would be variously orga- Although the overwhelmingmajorityof representa-
nized-each highlightingpotentiallymeaningfulattri- tionsofhumansin thisperiodis female,males arenotab-
butes ofone sortor another-and fewwould be satisfied sent. There are at least two fromFrance-the "Priape"
with a studyof "blades." While McDermott prefersto fromLaussel (Musee d'Aquitaine) and the "figurinea la
focus on the general category"female," I believe that ceinture"fromBrassempouy(Musee desAntiquitesNati-
contextual and empirical attributespertainingto raw onales),which has a reliefofthe scrotumand penis that
material, stylistic details, archaeological provenience is carefullysculptedand polished (see Duhard I987a).
and relatedmaterialpatterning, qualityofrendering,and Accordingto McDermott'shypothesis,when the indi-
completenessofsubjectmattermustbe madepart ofthe vidual looks at herselffull-length, assumingthatthe eye
analysis and not merelylisted as supplementalregional acts like a wide-anglelens therewill be distortionofthe
conventions.In this regardI am not at all clear why a bodyimage,with the chest longerthanthe lowerlimbs,
3,ooo-km"culturalcorridor"is appropriateforbounding extended breasts,and reduced extremities.Depending
this study ratherthan an 8,ooo-km "female statuette on the volume of the belly, the feet,lower limbs, and
zone," except that the inclusion of the Siberian speci- genital regionmay even disappear.But the human eye
mens would make it harderforMcDermottto discount does not act like a wide-anglelens; its focal corresponds
empiricalvariabilityin favorof a centraltendency. to a so-mm lens, producingno distortion.Besides, the
In the end what bothersme most about this studyis image is seen not by the eye but by the occipital centers
its blatantmorphocentrism. This researchdid not start of the brain,since everyimage is interpreted.Our ana-
with a general processual question about the relation- tomical knowledge of the body comes both fromself-
ship betweenvisual imageryand behavioralprocessesin examinationand fromthe examinationofothersin such
prehistory,with a concern for archaeological context, a way as to verifyour identityin appearancewhile notic-
or with fundamentaltechnologicalconcerns.Instead it ing differences. The women supposed to be represented
startedwith a novel observationabout morphological afterself-examinationwould not have missed the ana-
parallels,then proceededto rallytheoryto supportand tomical nonconformity of theirbodies, and if theyhad
explain it. Ratherthan thinkingof these images within theircompanionswould have pointedit out.

Self-Representation
This theorydoes not account forthe facts observed. JAMES ELKINS

Reductionofthe feetmay be explainedby theirdistance DepartmentofArt History,Theory,and Criticism,
fromthe eye, but it is easy to bringthem closer. As for School of the Art Instituteof Chicago, 37 S. Wabash,
theirabsence,it is not explainedat all; it is obvious that Chicago, Ill. 60603, U.S.A. i8 x 95
we have them-we can see them,we use them,we touch
them.Regardingthe hands,the theorydoes not account There is a conceptual difficultyat the root of McDer-
foreithertheirabsence,theirreduction(evenwhen they mott's paper that preventsme fromengagingit as an
reston thebreasts[Lespugue,Willendorf, the"manchede archaeologicalor anthropologicalessay, and that is the
poignard"]),or theirexaggerationwhen theyreston the definitionof self-representation. If "autogenous self-
belly(Parabita).The hippedattitudethatI have described representation"is not a redundancy,then I take it to
forthe torsofromBrassempouycan onlybe explainedin mean self-representation that attemptsto do justice to
termsofexaminationbysomeone else orreference to the the viewer's perspective,as opposed to self-representa-
posture of another individual. A face like that of the tion thatpresentsthe vieweras he or she may appearto
"dame a la capuche" fromBrassempouy(Musee des Anti- someone else, or in normativeproportions.
quites Nationales),which is a trueportraitin spiteofthe At the veryoutset thereare problems.The conceptof
missingmouthand the roughshape ofan eye,could only perspectivein this sense derivesfromPlato's distinction
have been sculptedby anotherpersonunless theindivid- betweensculpturesmade accordingto the actual propor-
ual could look at herselfin a watermirror-and ifthelat- tions of a figure (eikastike) and those "semblances"
terall the otherheads could and should have been simi- (phantastike)thatare "opticallycorrected"so thattheir
larlydetailed,which is not the case. The realismofsome proportionsappear correctfroma certainpoint of view
vulvae, incorporated(Monpazier,Grimaldi) or isolated (Munman I985; Trimpi I983: I I3). Hence the idea ofan
(fromthe Aurignacianto the Magdalenian),is not ex- intentionallyuncorrectedrepresentationis decisively
plainedbythistheory.It is impossibleforanywoman,un- Western,and Plato's interestin distortedand undis-
less she is a contortionistor has the help of a mirror,to tortedsculpturesis an integralpartoftheWesterndevel-
see her whole vulva. Some vulvae are detailedin such a opmentof the conceptofdrawnand sculptedlinearper-
way (labiaminora,clitoris,vestibule)thattheycouldonly spective (Elkins I994). In this context it is especially
have been viewed by someone else. importantthat the concern with perspectivaldistor-
My view is completelydifferent fromMcDermott's tions,recessions,and proportionalities has been so per-
excepton one point: completeanatomicalrealismis ab- vasive in Westernthoughtthat it took an iconoclastic
sent duringthe Gravettian(and the UpperPaleolithicin thinkerlike Maurice Merleau-Pontyto make a con-
general),but thereis realismofdetail with regardto the certed effortto overturnthe demands of perspective.
regionsof the femalebody involvedin the reproductive Merleau-Ponty'sphenomenologyof the body stresses
functions.In my view, if the medio-corporalregionis the unproportional,unoptical possibilities that follow
obviously privileged,it is for one simple reason: that on a more somatic, less visual awareness of the body:
this is the location of the femalesexual characteristics, forexample, a foot or a hand mightbe depictedoverly
characteristicsthatallow recognitionas a human being, largebecause it is experiencedthatway (Merleau-Ponty
specificationofgender,and readingofphysiologicalhis- I962, I99 3). But virtuallyall figurative workin theWest
tory(youngor adult,gravidor not, nursingor not, etc.). continuesto play with perspectivaloptions,even when
The depictionsof bodies are exclusivelysculpted,this it engagesin a critiqueofperspective'scanonical forms.
being the only way to representvolumes, and in the So it is naturalforpost-RenaissanceWesternersto be
bodypartsrepresented,havingexaminedalmost I5,000 interestedin these issues: but even if we allow that a
women of all ages throughout25 yearsof gynecological non-Western,prehistoricsculptorcould become inter-
practice, I can recognize shapes identical to living ested in them,then it would still be necessaryto think
women's, showingthe same diversityin the appearance about the entirefieldof autogenous self-representation
oftheirbreasts,abdomens,hips,or buttocksand adipos- as it appears to us, so that we mightbecome sensitive
ity distribution(see, e.g., Duhard I994). In my opinion to thepossibilitieswe projectonto the material.It is not
the reductionor omission of distal partsis a matterof at all irrelevantthatan interestin autogenousself-repre-
the graphicsettingof the work; unnecessaryto the rec- sentationcharacterizescontemporary Westernartmore
ognitionofhumanness,gender,or physiologicalstate of than modern,earlymodern,medieval, classical, or any
the individual,they are usually neglected.In the same otherworld art. Is it suspicious that our contemporary
spirit,I have pointed to the importanceof the orienta- culture,the one most involved in self-representation,
tion of the upper limbs, rarely directed towards the would be the one to discoverit in othercultures?
breastsbut quite oftentowardsthe abdomen,focusing In that context I offerthree alternativesto McDer-
attentionon its reproductivefunction(Duhard I989b). mott's insistence on the idea that any autogenousself-
AlthoughI do not share Leroi-Gourhan'sideas about representationwill involve enlargedtorsos and dwin-
the geometricstructureof the figures(Duhard I995), I dlinglimbs.
agree with him that figurativeart is directlylinked to First:a representationmightmake use of reflections
language and much closer to writing,in a broad sense, in water (not a difficultfeat,as anyoneknows who has
than to art (Leroi-GourhanI964-65). triedthe experiment)in orderto producean autogenous

FIG. i. JoanSemmel, Hand Down, I977, watercolor.Courtesythe artist.
FIG. 2. JoanSemmel, Sun Light,1978. Oil on canvas. Courtesythe artist;photo by JohnKasparian.

Self-Representation
self-representation more in accord with actual propor-

tions of the body.In I979 the artistElsa Dorfmanmade
such a representationusing modernmeans, thinkingof
herselfas the Venus ofWillendorf;the photo shows her
nude, holding the camera up to her eye, reflectedin a
hotel mirror.Second: a representationcan be explicitly
fromthe point ofview of the artistand not involve any
diminutionof the limbs. Beginningin the early I970S
the artistJoanSemmel has made such representations
(figs.i and 2), includinga numberbased on the idea of
A\ the Venus ofWillendorf.(Othersdo involve diminution
ofthe limbs: it is a choice she makes, and she considers
herselffreeto choose eithernormativeor distortedrep-
resentations-eithereikastikeorphantasike.)It is inter-
estingthatbothworkspreserveproportionsbut cropthe
body,an optionthatis also available in sculpture.Third:
a self-representation mightseek to be a littlemore lit-
eral about the kinds of distortionMcDermottdescribes
by includingthe orbitof the eye, cheek,and nose as the
largestelements in the visual field-as ErnstMach did
in severalfamousrepresentations (fig.3). Mach's picture
T4~~~~~~~ is the literal embodimentof what McDermott has in
mind, and it follows his own stricturesmuch more
FIG. 3. ErnstMach, The Field of Vision (Mach closely than the prehistoricfigurinesdo. If "autogenous
I886:I4, fig. I). self-representation" were at work in the Upper Paleo-
lithic, one might expect to find examples more self-
consistentlyperspectival.And consider,as an envoi,rep-
resentationsthat involve dwindlinglimbs but are not
self-representations at all, forexample,some late draw-
ings by the Renaissance painterJacopoPontormo(fig.
4).
FIG 4S f ' F X
A~~~~I
FIG.4 .Jacopo Pontormo,StudyJorThe Resurrection,

Florence,Uffizi.

What is autogenous self-representation? No one longsto the same individual,would have allowed a more
knows,because no one has studiedit: but certainlyany natural representation.The argumentspresentedindi-
study,whetheror not it concernsprehistoricmaterials, cate little familiaritywith ivoryas a raw materialand
should begin with a considerationof the possibilities, the problemsof preservation.Even if fossil tusks were
which are virtuallyall Western,virtuallyall modern, used, the appendageis intentional.It may mean many
and withoutexceptionpostclassical. thingsbesides a penis, I agree,but thereis only minor
weatheringof the interiorof the pulpa on the obliquely
cut lamellae.
JOACHIM HAHN The male figureof Brno 2 is questionable because of
InstitutfuirUr- und Friihgeschichte,Universitat preservationproblems.The head is separate,and the one
Tiibingen,D-7207o Tiibingen,Germany.io X 95 preservedarm still shows the concavityof the ivoryla-
mella, indicating that it was detached from a larger
McDermottpresentsanothernew view on an old topic, piece; it does not fitthe supposed body. If fossil ivory
the Upper Paleolithic female figurines.Women are as- was used, such fissureplanes mighthave appeareddur-
sumed to have this view looking down, and the statu- ing the carvingprocess. The bodyverymuch resembles
ettes are interpretedas autogenousself-representations.the pestles made fromtusk segmentsknownin the Pav-
Two argumentsagainstthisview are therepresentations lovian-Kostenkian-Gravettian; if it was a figurine,it
of the arms and the back. The back is treatedin some must have been an articulatedone.
detail, especially the buttocks,which cannot be seen I dislike chronologicalarguments,but mobiliaryart
like that by oneself.The arms are treatedlike the legs, is ratherwell dated as comparedwith parietalart.Ifthe
beingtruncatedor even absent,whereasseen fromabove PKG-stylefemalesareplaced in theirchronologicalposi-
theyshould be enlargedor ofnormalsize. The bas-relief tion,theycannot be used to discuss the originbut only
fromGeissenklosterle (Hahni986:iI7-I9), forexample, the evolutionoffigurativeart.Mobiliaryartin the early
has more a symmetricalarrangementof the upper and UpperPaleolithicstartswithnormal-sizedfigurines, an-
lower halves of the body and the limbs, as has been imal-often male bison and mammoth-and human
pointed out by many previous writers,because of its representationsthat are oftenabbreviatedand only in a
rhomboidoutline. laterstageconcentrateson the famousPKG-stylefemale
Chronologyis handled ratherloosely here. The PKG- figurines.These earlier statuettesof animals and hu-
stylefigurinesare sometimes called the earliestprehis- mans were necessarilyseen by others.If McDermott's
toricrepresentations, sometimesattributedto the mid- conclusions on the self-representations of women hold,
dle Upper Paleolithic. They are not the oldest such then it is only for the middle Upper Paleolithic. The
figurines;in the Aurignaciantheyrangebetween36,ooo evident variety in their form is not covered by his
and 30,000 B.P., and similardates exist forRussian ani- scheme.
mal representations. The fewAurignaciananthropomor-
phic statuettes (Geissenkl6sterle,Hohlenstein, Stratz-
ing) display "normal" proportions,with long limbs and JAN JELINEK
indications of hands and feet but distinctivefeatures AnthroposInstitute,Moravske muzeum, Zelnyrtrh7,
such as animal attributesor nonstatic attitudes.The 65937 Brno,Czech Republic. 28 IX 95
surfacesare not preserved,so the sex is difficultif not
impossible to determine. The figurinefrom Krems- The idea that Pavlovian-Kostjenkian-Gravettian female
Stratzingis assumed to be femalebut is not considered figurinesare producedin accordancewith observations
by McDermott; its proportions,with long extremities, by females themselves is certainlyprovocative.Some
and its liftedarm do not fithis PKG scheme. criticalobservationsmay be made.
The discussionofmale figurinesis an attemptto chal- Insteadof a selection,a representativesample or even
lenge the apparentlycontradictoryevidence to the as- the whole corpus of known PKG-stylefigurinesshould
sumed importantrole of females, and thereforethe be considered.Some of these (the majority)have no fa-
Aurignacian Hohlenstein-Stadel zooanthropomorphic cial featuresat all, some have at least initial facial fea-
figurine(length30 cm) is supposedto be female.Schmid tures (e.g., Brassempouy,the male figurinefromBrno,
(I989), for example, considers the beginning of the KostjenkiI983, Avdjejevo I977), and some have unreal-
throat,the foldunder the navel, a breastfragment, the istic facial features(Dolni Vestonice,the Predmostife-
pubic triangle,and the missing mane as female attri- male figureengravedon mammoth tusk). As for the
butes. The throatincision is, however,too vague to be arms,theyoftencontradictthe enlargedor emphasized
consideredthe start of a female breast; the fold may breasts, being significantlyreduced (Willendorf,Les-
occur in men, and the missingmane is a featurefound pugue, Gagarini2 and 4, Predmostf);this cannot be the
in the recentlydiscoveredChauvet parietalpaintingsof resultof self-inspection.Some figurinesdo not have ex-
lions(ChauvetI995:97; Clotteset al. I995). The pubic aggeratedanatomical featuresthat mightbe explained
triangle,markedby its protruding position,is not condi- as due to the self-viewingperspective(Petrkovice,Avd-
tioned by the pulpa opening. The length of the tusk, jejevo I975). Some have appropriatelyproportioned
especially if the second so-cm-longunworkedone be- lower extremities(Gagarino 3, Avdjejevo I), and the

MC DERMOTT in Female Figurines| .259
Self-Representation
figurinefrom Jelisejevitchihas an exaggeratedlower barellesdoes the same. Many ofthe engravedMagdelen-

body,especially the lower extremities. ian females depictedon the La Marche limestoneslabs
Evidentlysome artistsstressedsome parts of the fe- are obese in the mannerofthe Gravettian"Venus" figu-
male body (breasts,belly,buttocks)and reducedothers rines; the majorityhave upraisedarmsofnormalwidth;
(facial features,arms, legs), but this is farfroma rule. many have been renewed or overengraved.They were
Great variability is what we observe in Pavlovian- probably,with the La Marche images of males and ani-
Kostjenkian-Gravettian figurines, and thereasonforthis mals, engravedby othersas elementsofhome-siteritual
is probablymore complex than the distortionsof self- ratherthan as self-portraits (Pales and de St.-Pereuse
inspection. I976). The human armsin all ofthesefemaledepictions
are of "normal" width. An incised Gravettianfemale
fromKostenki i, on a fragmentofmarl,also has an arm
ALEXANDER MARSHACK of normal width that is extended outward (Abramova
Peabody Museum ofArchaeologyand Ethnology, I967b: I4, pl. 9 [i6]).
Harvard University,Cambridge,Mass. 02138, U.S.A. Why, then, are the PKG-style female figurinesde-
3I X 95 picted with exaggeratedlythin arms attachedto a "loz-
enge" body?Was this done because oftherelativeunim-
The ethnographicand anthropologicalrecordprovides portanceofthe armsand hands and thegreatersymbolic
no evidence that women in hunter-gatherer cultures importanceofthe breastsand hips?Or because the arms
everproduced"autogenous" representations oftheirob- were seen, fromabove, autogenously?Apparentlynot.
served anatomical "selves." Female images were often In engravingand bas-reliefcarvingit is easy to depict
produced but always as indicative and/or mythic extendedor raisedarms. Small ivoryand stone figurines
symbols. are,however,relativelydifficultto carvein threedimen-
The earliest Upper Paleolithic female representation sions. Even ifivoryis "softened"bysoakingorsteaming,
is from the Aurignacian of Galgenberg,Austria, ca. as was suggestedby Semenov (i964), it requiresslow,
30,000 ? B.P. It is a greenserpentine carvingofa nude laborious whittling. "Free" arms extended from the
with one breastjuttingout to the left,the otherfacing body,thin ankles,feetattachedto thinankles, and thin
frontward,the vulva clearly indicated, the left arm necks would have been verylikelyto breakeitherduring
raised,and the righthand restingon the thigh,posed as the carving or in later use or storage.' McDermott's
thoughin a ritualor dance position(Neuebauer-Maresch drawings(fig.i) depict the high proportionof missing
I988). All of the "human" figuresin the Aurignacian feetand heads in the corpus.Direct analysis of the Up-
suggestaspects ofritualperformance or ritualuse rather per Paleolithicfemalefigurinessuggestthatthe concep-
than "naturalistic" depiction,including a lion-headed tual Gravettian"lozenge" noted by Leroi-Gourhanhad
anthropomorphfromHohlenstein-Stadeland a carved as much to do with the difficulty of carvingthe human
bas-relief,probablymale, from Geissenklosterlewith body in ivory,"bone," and stone as with any ideology
the feet apart and the arms raised as in dance or ritual concerningthe importanceof the breasts,hips, and na-
adoration, reminiscent of the Galgenberg female. A vel (Leroi-GourhanI967:I2I I-.22).
crude,rapidlycarved anthropomorphic figurefromVo- An unfinishedfigurinemade of a compact claylike
gelherd,apparentlya schematic female, was ritually chalk fromKostenki i (fig.i) illustratesthe mode and
overmarkedwith rows of gouges in the same way as sequence of carvinganatomical volumes and indenta-
wereanimal carvingsincludinga lion fromthissite. The tions by whittlingand scrapingin different regionsand
underlyingritual aspect of this Aurignacianimageryis directions(Abramova I967b:g,I. 5[3]). The bent head,
crucialforanyunderstanding ofthehumanimagerythat with its "down-turned"face, produced a thick, strong
would follow. neck duringcarving.The armswould have restedon the
The Gravettian("PKG-style")femalespresentdiffer- breasts; carved as part of the centralmass, theywould
ent but related analytical problems. Most of the en- not have broken off. Strong counterpressureswould
graved or bas-reliefGravettiandepictions of humans have been applied to both the figurineand the tool dur-
have raisedor extendedarms:Laussel providesthreeim- ingthe scrapingand carving,particularlyin areas ofdeep
ages of females holding animal horns in a raised arm; indentation.The Kostenki figurineapparentlybrokein
the so-called Laussel hunterhas a raised arm, and the the process of carvingthe feet,in the area of thinnest
Laussel "birthing"scene depicts a female with bent mass, at the knees, and where the legs would begin to
arms clasping her raised knees while apparentlygiving bend. The carving was, therefore,apparentlyangrily
birth(my directmicroscopicanalysis).LaterMagdalen- bashed across the chest,broken,and discarded.Broken-
ian engravingsand bas-reliefsalso depict females with offheads and figurineswith missingheads are common
raised or extendedarms: a Laugerie Basse pregnantfe- in the Gravettian.The productionproblems in these
male lyingprone has raised arms under a phallic male carvingswere, therefore,different fromthose involved
reindeer;an engravingfromIsturitzon bone shows two
females in tandem with raised arms; an engravingand I. The Galgenbergcarvinghas, probablyforthisreason,massive
two bas-reliefsfromLa Madeleine depict nude females armsthatareas wideas theheadand thethighsbutno wristsand
withraised,bent arms; and an engravingfromLes Com- no ankles.The bodyis not obese but thatofa youngwoman.

260 I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996
tion. The "Venus" of Willendorf,one of the type figu-

rines of the Gravettian(see Marshack iggib), is short
and exaggeratedlywide (see McDermott's fig. i, e); it
has an unnaturallythick neck but thin arms and tiny
feet,probablybecause of the impracticalityof carving
Longlimbs or thin distal appendages in the relatively
soft,breakable limestone. The Willendorffigurinealso
carriesa number of attributesor determinativesthat
could not have been seen autogenously.She wears the
common Gravettian female coiffure,which fills the
head and overhangsa nonexistentface (fig.2). This coif-
fureconsists of long, twined or plaited braids coiled
around the head, recalling the coiled coiffureon a
Gravettianivoryhead fromDolni Vestonice (Marshack
iggia:30I). The zigzag abstractionof twining is the
same as thatfoundon theWillendorffigurine'sbracelets
and on bracelets,body bands, and collars as fareast as
the RussianPlain (Abramova1960, Marshack199Ib),
indicatingan aspect of decorativestyle across much of
Europe. Upper Paleolithic females could not, of course,
see the tops of theirheads, yet the coiffurewas a major,
shared markerof maturefemales; it could be observed
on othersif not on the self. Like the lozenge form,the
coiffurewas an aspect of style and custom ratherthan
of autogenous observation.The Willendorffigurineis
also thicklycoveredwith red ocher,a featurefoundon
otherGravettianfemales (cf.Laussel) that suggestsrit-
ual use of the image-a suggestionthatrelatesit to the
overmarkedearlierAurignacianimages and to the over-
marked "buttocks" images of the Magdalenian (Mar-
shack I99Ia:307-II; I99Ib). Even an unfinished
Gravettiananthropomorphic image on an ivorytusk (a
sketch) was rituallyovermarked(see McDermott's fig
FIcG. I. Unfinished,brokenfemale `iurine of claylike 4,c; Marshack 991ia:29 i). But,above all, the Willendorf
chalk fromKostenki I, indicatingthe mode of figurinehas the most carefullyand exquisitelycarved
carving.Height I75Scm. realisticvulva in the entireEuropeanUpper Paleolithic.
It is placed farunderthe voluminous breastsand stom-
ach, where it could not have been seen by self-
inspection.It is carvedwith an accuracythatcould have
in creatingengravedor bas-reliefhuman images. The been producedonlyby another,thatis, by someone gen-
conceptual "lozenge" was apparently,in part at least, erallyfamiliarwith femaleanatomy(fig.3).
a response to the problem of carvingappendages and Gravettianfemaleimages varyin the rangeand preci-
protuberances(heads, arms, and feet).The Gravettian sion of such applied or associated attributes.It was of-
figurineshave arms on the breasts,underthe breasts,or ten,apparently,these attributesthat"marked"and gave
at the sides,and some have no arms.The "black Venus" culturalrelevanceto the figurinesand theiruse, proba-
fromDolnl' V'estonice(McDermott's fig.I, g), modeled bly as much as the breasts,hips, and buttocks.This is
in soft clay before firing,has no arms; the incised strikinglyapparentin one figurinethat is inadequately
Gravettian geometric,schematic female on an ivory describedand illustratedby McDermott. The figurine
tusk from P'redmostlhas arms, however, that hang fromMonpazier (McDermott'sfig.9, b; Clottes I97I) is
freely,away fromthe body. a naturally shaped conglomerateiron hydroxide(limo-
Among the Gravettianfigurines,the clearlyexagger- nite) pebble that possesses an exaggerated"pregnant"
ated wide hips and buttocks and the thin arms were stomach and an exaggeratedprotrudingrear,as well as
largelyinvitedby the lozenge formand the pragmatics a head and feet (fig.4). Natural, seeminglydepictive
of carving,not necessarilyby autogenous observation. formsare common and are even foundon the walls of
A "close reading" of the Gravettianfemales indicates the sanctuarycaves, where theywere oftenminimally
that culturallyrelevantsymbolicattributesor determi- modifiedto heighten their effect(see Delporte i982).
nativeswere often,also, added to the figurinesafterthe Two crude eyes were intentionallyscalloped onto the
basic anatomyhad been carved. These were aspects of Monpazier head, and the breasts were lightlyscraped
an underlyingstyle ratherthan of autogenousobserva- to heightentheirrealism.It is the aspect of exaggerated

in Female FigurinesI 26i
FIG. 2. Head ofthelimestoneWillendorf indicatingthespiralofa twinedcoiffure

figurine, carvedas a zigzag
motif.
pregnancy,however,thatis the object's keyfeature,and That diversityis not a resultof autogenousobservation

it was this featurethat was addressedby producingone or of "conscious mastery of the material conditions
of the most dramaticmodificationsof an image to be unique to women's reproductivelives" but perhapsrep-
foundin theUpperPaleolithic.Directlyunderthe "preg- resented the opposite-the recognitionof and ritual,
nant" belly a huge,wide-open,verydeep oval vulva (fig. mythologizedparticipationin theuncertaintiesand dan-
5) was carved with as much care and precision as the gers that surroundedthe processes of life, birth and
smaller, "normal" vulva on the Willendorffigurine. death. Such mythsand ritualswere not aspects of "em-
This large vulva is apparentlyan image and symbolof powermentand mastery,"eitherpolitical or ideological,
the "portal"throughwhich thefetalinfantcarriedin the
distendedstomach above would emerge.(Duhard I987)
This aspect and view of the vulva could probablyonly or hearth-associated/open-airsheltercontexts-mighthave had
have been seen by a midwifeor anotherfemalewho was something to do withthedevelopment ofinnovative obstetric
prac-
tices(midwives?) thatTrinkaussuggestswerepartofthebiological
aiding in a delivery.It is thereforepossible that this transitionto modernH. sapiens" (i983:222). Data such as thoseI
vulva and figurinewere "created" and used in a ritual have presentedherewouldformpartofongoinginquiryintosuch
seekingan easy and safe delivery.2 practices,but "innovativeobstetricpractices"would surelyhave
I have long documentedthe diversityin Upper Paleo- involvedsymbolicandmythicintervention. Suchsymbolicbehav-
lithic female imageryand its uses, includingthe diver- ior need not have been an aspectof social "empowerment" or of
controloverthe materialconditionsofpregnancy and childbirth.
sityin the so-calledVenus figurines(Marshack199 ia,b). Symbolicand materialbehaviorsrelatingto femaleprocessesin
the EuropeanGravettianmaynot have been muchdifferent from
behaviorsin otherhuman culturesearlier,later,and elsewhere.
2. McDermottcites Conkey(i983), who thereremarksthatthe The EuropeanUpperPaleolithicmerelyprovidesartifactual evi-
from'domestic' dencein stoneandboneforan earlyregionalformofsuchbehavior.
"mislabelledVenusfigurines-sooftenrecovered

FIG. 3. Lower half of the Willendorf

figurine,
indicatingthe carvedpubis and vulva as well as the
thickknees and the minuscule feet,lacking ankles.
but indicationsofa symbolicattemptat influencingand

participatingin the periodicities,equations, and diffi-
culties of the processes involved. A two-sidedamulet
FIG. 4. Naturally shaped limoniteformfrom
fromGrimaldi(Marshacki986) has a pregnantimage on
one face and a nonpregnantfemaleimage on the other. Monpazier resemblinga pregnantfemale withlarge
It may have been worn by a woman seekingpregnancy buttocks.Height SS mm.
and a safedeliverymuch as the Monpazierfigurine(and
at least one of the Laussel bas-reliefs)may have been
used. Among the Gravettianfigurinesthereare images
of pregnancyas well as images of nonpregnancyand, of women in complex symbolicculturesare, of course,
therefore,apparently,potential pregnancy(see Mar- importantissues. They cannot,however,be adequately
shack iggia). Since the Grimaldi amulet incorporates investigatedor addressed by descriptionsof the gross
both,it is clearlynot an autogenousdepictionbut rather female morphologyand supposed "autogenous" con-
one image in the variable tradition. tentsof the Gravettianfigurines.
McDermott's Eurocentricidea that the Gravettian The notionthatmaturefemalesacross GravettianEu-
figurines represent a "beginning" of female self- rope were looking under their arms at their hips and
awareness and "conscious masteryof the reproductive buttocksand down to theirnavels forthousandsofyears
conditionsofwomen" is derivedfromthe contemporary in orderto carve images ofthemselvesin hardmaterials
effortto locate a "beginning"of human self-awareness is ratherstartling.Knowledgeand use of the Gravettian
in the EuropeanUpper Paleolithic (White i992, but see style would have been a much simpler process and
Marshack I994) and the "genderingofarcheology,"with method.3
its effortto shiftarcheological,theoreticalconcernto-
wards the role of women in earlyhuman cultures.The
of"self" (seeMarshacki992,
problem I994) andtherole 3. ? I996 by Alexander Marshack.

basis of a relativelylarge assemblage of clay figurines

fromPavlov i (Kllma I989), I suggestthat two of them
are very probablymasculine. Absolon's earlier collec-
tion of ceramicsfromDolni Vestonice I includes a her-
maphroditicbeing.Finally,I would call attentionto the
femalefigurinesthatdo not fitthe self-viewing perspec-
tive, such as the hematite figurinefoundby Klima in
I953 at Petrkovice(new excavationsin I994-95 have
helped to clarifyits contextby unearthingnearbyareas
coveredwith powderedochre).The individualityofthis
slim femaletorsoseems due to its youngerage and pos-
sibly an earlier stage of pregnancy-differencesthat
would be readilyrecognizableby an outside observer.
As a terminologicalremarkit may be noted that re-
cent studies separate the Pavlovian and Kostenkianas
sequential chronologicaland culturalunits.
SILVIA TOMASKOVA
Archaeological Research Facility,Universityof
California,
Berkeley, Calif.94720, U.S.A. ii x 95
I applaud the principleof McDermott's attemptto sug-
gestan alternativeinterpretation ofthe EuropeanPaleo-
FIG. 5. Close-up of the deep, wide-openoval vulva lithic female representations.It is an audacious detour
carved on the Monpazier figurine. fromperspectivesthatconsideredonlythe possibilityof
male producersand male audiences,usingfemalebodies
as a mediumforthe purposeoftrade,education,or com-
JIRI SVOBODA municationofknowledge.Rather,McDermottproposes
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic,Institute exploring"the logical possibilitythatthe firstimages of
ofArchaeology, 25, Czech
CZ-69I 29 Dolni VWstonice the human figurewere made fromtheperspectiveofself
Republic (ps@isibrno.cz). I5 X 95 ratherthan other." This innovative approach exposes
previouslyunstated assumptions that the prehistoric
Wheneveran originalidea has been suggestedduringthe representations were object-oriented,voyeuristicimages
more than a centuryof interpretation of Paleolithicart, of an other.
its authorhas tendedto overlookalternatives.This con- However, many of the argumentsthat McDermott
tradictsthe obvious diversityof approachesin both the raisesin supportofhis claim and the conclusionsthathe
creationand the interpretation of works of art (Conkey draws are eitherfactuallyor logicallyflawed.Multiple,
I987). The present paper is relatively convincing in equally plausible interpretationsmay be offered fora set
showing how the self-regarding perspectivemay have ofdata,but to be convincingtheyrequirestrongeviden-
contributedto the developmentof the Gravettianfigu- tial supportand logical consistency.Among the wide
rinestyle.It elegantlyexplainsthe inabilityto reproduce range of issues raised by the article (e.g., the status of
heads and the exaggeratedproportionsof the protruding realism,memory,and functionality in the originsofrep-
partsofthe body.It neverthelessseems likelythatother resentation),I will address only a few points directly
features,such as massive bodies and shortextremities, relatedto the Central/EastEuropeanarchaeologicalevi-
may be due to factorssuch as the technicalqualities of dence invoked and the logical moves made in its inter-
the material,requiringa consistentshape duringboth pretation.
fabricationand use (in contrast to, for example, the The argumentrestson a basic assumptionof stylistic
bronze figurinesof the metal ages), the importanceof and cultural unity of the "Pavlovian-Kostenkian-
individualbodypartsin the eyes of theirsculptors,and Gravettiantechnocomplex,"an entitycoveringalmost
the establishedelementsofthe style.Paleolithicanimal all of Europe fromFranceto Russia. Such unitymay be
figurinesequally tend to have shortlegs comparedwith suggested,but McDermott's claim that it is generally
theirbodies, and we do not expect animals to be self- accepted on the basis of the stone tool technologyis
observingsculptors. highlycontentiousto say the least. Furthermore, I doubt
McDermott's article is certainlyan innovative and that many scholars would agree that the Gravettian
positive contributionthat will considerablychange our "originated"in Central Europe with the Pavlovian and
understandingof earlyfemale representations. It there- spread from there to France and to Russia (one is
foreseems quite unnecessaryto argueat the same time temptedto ask why then "Pavlovian" has remaineda
againstthe presenceof male representations duringthe relativelyobscuretermforthoseworkingat thewestern
Gravettianor to reduce their number to one. On the end of the continuum).A numberof hypothesesabout

the relationshipbetweenthe earlierAurignacianand its knowledge about "hygiene and reproduction,"why is

time-specificlocal variants (such as the Szeletian in the majorityof the collection composed of representa-
CentralEurope)and the Gravettianhave been discussed, tion of animals? Was there any identificationbetween
yet the debate remains open and the "origin" of any women and animals as the self,or were the animals the
technocomplexsketchyat best. While stylisticconven- "other"?And what does that tell us about the relation-
tions have been accepted, close scrutinyof individual ships between men and women at the time? I am left
lithic collections reveals a much more complex picture puzzled, and with a slightlystrainedneck,despitemany
(see, e.g.,Leonova I994 foran argumentagainsthomoge- yearsof yoga practice.
neity).
One may always argueforsome "generalsimilarities"
that span over io,ooo years in a discussion of larger RANDALL WHITE
evolutionarytrends. However, to argue for the same DepartmentofAnthropology, New York University,
"homogeneity"in an interpretationof social phenom- New York,N.Y. 10003-6607, U.S.A. 6 x 95
ena, as McDermott does, is logically unwarrantedand
in this case evidentiallyunsupported.Women taking Few areas of archaeologicalinterpretation are as badly
controloftheirreproductivefunctionsmay have consti- in need offreshair as thatsurrounding UpperPaleolithic
tuted a possible line of social action, but the status of female imagery.McDermott attemptsto move beyond
that action as an "adaptive response" (adaptive for the usual hackneyedinterpretations thatplague the sec-
whom?) that could fitan evolutionaryscenario,taking ondaryliteratureon the subject, and, unlike many re-
place forover io,ooo years-the estimatedtime span for cent writerson the subject,he has actually examineda
the dated figurines-requiresmore in the way of sus- numberof originalspecimens. Nevertheless,the thesis
tained argumentto be plausible. Needless to say, Mc- ofhis articleis quite problematicalfrombothan empiri-
Dermottdoes not even hint at the connectionbetween cal and a theoreticalperspective.
representationand "femininecontrolover the material
conditionsof reproductivelives" but rathertakes it for
granted,leaving this readerunconvinced.
McDermott suggeststhat the earliesthuman images
are the "Venuses," a name thathe rightlyrejects.How-
ever,the archaeologicalevidencefromAurignaciansites
in Central Europe (Hohlenstein-Stadel,Germany,and
Stratzing,Austria),as well as the Frenchsite Brassem- 4,74~4
pouy, clearlyshows that relativelysophisticatedrepre-
sentationsofhumans were made at an earliertime,sug-
gestingthat claims of "originsof art" are slightlyout of
place forthe more recentGravettianperiod.Moreover, IM
the possibilityof an older traditionofartisticimages on
perishable materials (e.g., wood, leather, drawing in
sand, or body painting)should not be discounted.The
animal figurinesfromthe Aurignacianlayers (dated to
34,000-30,000 B.P.) at Vogelherdand Geissenklosterle
(Germany) not only undermine the notion that the
Gravettianfemale figurinescould have been an origin
ofanythingbut also refuteMcDermott'ssuggestionthat if
"if PKG-styleimages of the human figurewere created

and disseminatedby women, it is possible that PKG-
styleand Aurignaciansculpturesof animals,which em-
ploy similar materialsand techniques,were createdby
women." Even ifwe accept the possibilitythatsome of
the figurinesmay have been created by women, the
claim that thereforethe women were also responsible
forall animal figurinesat the same time period,as well
as duringthe previous times, is purelya leap of faith,
one that not all of us may feel compelled to take.
McDermott rightlynotes that,forexample, at Dolni
Vestonice (as well as Pavlov) the majorityof the figu-
rineswere animals,with onlya fractionofhuman repre-
sentations.This fact is then leftbehindforthe sake of
the interpretation of the human images and the general FIG. I. The so-called playing card fromLaussel,
hypothesisof self-representation. Ifwomen were indeed France,probably a kneelingfemale figurewithlightly
creating the figurinesas a means of communicating engravedaqueous reflection(photoA. Roussot).

,WwR:%
A
00
FiG. 2 . The "brownivoryfigurine"(left)and the "flattenedfigurine"(right)fromGrimaldi. Both exhibithigh

luster and means of suspension (furrowand perforationrespectively)(photosR. White).
A problemat the outset is that McDermottseems to lar conventionalized "distortions." Unless we accept
underestimatethe intellectual and observationalabili- that the horses and rhinocerosescontemporarywith
ties of Upper Paleolithic humans. The propositionof much of the female statuarywere sculptingor painting
self-viewingrepresentationis foundedin largemeasure images ofthemselves,we cannotattribute"distortions"
on the presumedabsence oftechnologicalmeans ofself- to self-viewingrepresentation.The giving of greater
viewing(i.e., mirrors).However,a tellingartifactin this symbolic and representationalpriorityto certain ana-
regardis the engravedlimestone slab fromLaussel, the tomical featuresseems to me a more viable inference.
most credible interpretationof which is that it repre- In my view McDermottmakes an errorin presuming
sents a kneelingwoman and her aqueous reflection(fig. the dominance of the visual domain in earlyUpper Pa-
I). If this interpretation
is accepted,it indicatesthe rec- leolithic female imagery.My own researchin the past
ognition and depiction of reflectedhuman images by two years (White I996a, b, c) has focusedveryheavily
earlyUpper Paleolithic people. People were almost cer- on the totallyignoredtactile qualities of these objects,
tainlyable to combine theirown distortedreflectionsin the technologicalmeans (polishes,glazes) by whichpar-
still water with theirdaily observationsof otherpeople ticularsurfacetextureswere achieved,and the textures
to producean accurate representationof themselves. found in nature that they were intendedto represent.
McDermottis not happywith the idea thatthe reduc- Indeed,such texturesmay have been perceivedin terms
tion of limbs relative to breasts and abdomens was a of supernaturalpower, a possibilitysupportedby care-
conventionbased in differential emphasison anatomical fullyburied figurinesand fragmentsat sites like Av-
features.However,if in factthese "distortions"emerge deevo.
fromself-inspection, theyshould be evidentonlyin hu- Large numbers of figurinesshow perforationsor
man imagery.But a quick glance at the 32,ooo-year-old carvedfurrowsto permitsuspension (fig.2). If this im-
Vogelherd animal figurines(foreshortenedlimbs, ab- plies thattheywere wornas pendantsor amulets (other
sence of tails) or the 3i,ooo-year-oldpainted rhinocer- contextsof suspension are certainlyimaginable),their
oses fromGrotteChauvet (pointedlimbs) reveals simi- tactile qualities become highlyimportant.They would

have been constantlyavailable to be experiencedby the

fingers.In this context,emphasison anatomicalfeatures
germaneto pregnancyand minimizationofnonrelevant
featuresmake greatsense. The factthatmore than 90%
of the known figurinesare manufacturedof soapstone,
marl,or ivory,all softand soapy to the touch,buttresses
this tactile emphasis (fig.3).
To the extentthat theywere intendedto be viewed,
early Upper Paleolithic female images show some fea-
tures that directly contradict McDermott's "autoge-
nous" hypothesis.For example,the furrowthatfollows
the vertebralcolumn in humans is almost always indi-
Az cated by the sculptor,althoughentirelyinvisibleto self-
inspection.However,the figurinesdiffer greatlyin their
visibility,largelyas a resultof variationin size. In Mc-
Dermott's figuresi and 2, all specimens have been re-
scaled to appear to be the same size. In reality,early
Upper Paleolithicfigurinesrangefrom2 cm to 30 cm in
|||-4U, length.
McDermott repeats many of the stereotypicdescrip-
tions of female figurines.For example, he emphasizes
bowed heads, while thisfeatureexistsin fewerthanone
in fivespecimens. The verydescription"bowed heads"
would seem to implythatthe figurinesare to be read as
standingfigures.That this may not be the case is illus-
tratedby the Kostienki i figurinepresentedin figure4.
Viewed in a lyingposition,this figurinemay reasonably
be interpretedas a woman strainingto give birth.In-
deed,ifmanyofthe figurineswereintendedto represent
lyingfigures,this would account forfrequentflattening
or upliftingof the buttocks and pronouncedsteatotro-
FIG. 3. The lustrous,possibly glazed surfaceof the
chanterialtissue.
pregnantabdomen of "the woman with two heads," a I am certainlynot against the notion that obstetric
minuscule (2.7 cm long) serpentinefigurinefrom
practicesare involvedin the contextof figurineproduc-
Grimaldi,Italy (photo R. White).
FIG. 4. Statuettenumber 3, in ivory,fromKostienkii, Russia, shown here lyingon its back (photo R. White).

in Female Figurines 267
2
tionand use. Indeed,Bisson and I have recentlyproposed incorporatesize errorsremarkablysimilar to those ob-
that many figurinesmay have served not to enhance servedin PKG-styleimages.'
fertilitybut to protect women duringpregnancyand Althoughone most oftenencountersbody-imagedis-
childbirth(Bissonand White i996). However,we need to tortionsin relationto eatingdisorderssuch as anorexia
be carefulnot to replace masculist ideologyin figurine nervosa (Slade and Russell I973), healthy individuals
interpretationwith functionalist,obstetricinterpreta- also estimatebodysize differently and significantly
less
tions saturatedwith the vocabularyand values of late- accurately than nonbody objects (Tiemersma I989).
2oth-centuryAmerican feminism(e.g., "self-conscious Even moreimportant,these errorsrevealconsistentpat-
femininecontrol over the material conditionsof their terns of over- and underestimationlinked to the geo-
reproductivelives"; see also White i986b). graphicallocation of body parts. Head width,forearm
In the end, there are three of McDermott's points length,and waist width are most oftenoverestimated,
about which I should like to express agreement.First, whereas hand and foot lengthsare typicallyunderesti-
the demonstrationin some instances that women pro- mated (Fisher I986, Shontz i969). The distances from
jected knowledge(thatonly theycould have possessed) the navel to the feetand fromthe crotchto thefeetalso
oftheirown bodies onto sculptedrepresentations indeed tend to be underestimated(Nash i969). The fact that
buttressesthe notion of figurineproductionby women, multiple studies reveal a generaltrendto overestimate
even ifone does not buy the whole autogenousobstetric the size of the upper body and to underestimatethose
package. Second, McDermottis rightin underliningthe oflower bodyareas (Fisheri986:I79) seems particularly
quasi-absenceofmale figurinesin the earlyUpperPaleo- relevantto understandingthe originofthe lozenge com-
lithic sample (see also White i996a). Finally and re- position.
freshingly, followingDuhard,he distinguishesthe early It is interestingthat errorsin body-size estimates
Upper Paleolithic figurinesample fromthat of the late are largelyunaffectedby bodypostures(e.g.,sittingver-
Upper Paleolithic,which exhibitsmuch higherpropor- sus standing) and are not appreciably influenced by
tions of pregnantand male representations. whethersubjects can or cannot see theirbodies. Indeed,
Finally,a minor point: The bas-reliefallegedlyfrom theuse ofa mirrorbysubjectsreducedbut did not elimi-
La Mouthe should probablybe expungedfromthe sam- nate the typical body-orientedsize judgmentpattern
ple, as it is almost certainlya moderndeception(White (Shontz i969). In fact,body-sizejudgmentsare not ap-
I992b). preciablyinfluencedby a host ofuncertaintiesabout the
comparabilityof measures (FisherI 9 8 6: I 6 5).
There are numerousparallels between modernbody-
schema studies and PKG-styleimages. Women tend to
overestimatethe width of the waist more than men
Reply (Fisher i986:i69), and pregnantwomen overestimate
theirbodysizemorethanotherwomen(SladeI977: I75).
Hester'sobservation(I 970) thattheupperarmis usually
LE ROY MC DERMOTT underestimatedis of interestpreciselybecause it runs
Mo., U.S.A.
Warrensburg, 27 XI 95 counterto the generaltrend.It indicates that the mod-
ern body schema can be highlyspecificin the way in
My decision to presentthe autogenoushypothesiswith- which it incorporatesdifferent body parts.Bisson, Du-
out a discussion of the interdisciplinarycontextfrom hard, Jelinek,and Hahn echo in one formor another
which it emerged appears to have encouraged some Delporte's pointed question: "Why,then,are the arms,
overlyrigid assumptions about how self-generated vi- being so close to the head, absent or atrophied?"Pre-
sual informationfunctionedin the fabricationof PKG- sumably,the arms and hands, being close to the eyes
styleimages.I have concentrated on theformand content like the breasts,should be similarlylarge or of normal
ofretinalinformationforthe sake ofclarityand because size. Our body schema, however,may employdifferent
such observationscan be experimentally replicated.My strategiesto encode differentbodyparts.For example,it
position is that the anatomical omissions and propor- has been observed that a subject's errorsin body-size
tional distortionsof PKG-styleimages originatedwith judgmentshave considerablestabilityover time (Fisher
visual informationderivedprimarilyfromthe physical I986:I66):
pointofview of selfbut thatothersensorydomainsand
The one exceptioninvolvedjudgmentsof hand
cognitiveprocesses also undoubtedlyplayed a role (see
length.Althougherrorsof estimationof hand length
n. 5). Pavlovian, Kostenkian, and Gravettianwomen
would not have been requiredto stand naked forhours i. The 2oth century'sinterestin how humanbeingsencodetheir
attemptingto capturethe foreshortened masses oftheir individualphysicalexistenceemergedin responseto medicalob-
servationsaboutthephantom-limb phenomenon ofamputees,the
bodyin intractablematerials,because theyalso presum- unusualsize distortionsexperiencedby schizophrenics
and those
ablyhad an internalizedbodyimage or schema ofthem- on drugs(macro-and microsomatognosia), and the neurological
selves to consult. As Davis's comment about clothing deficitsofthosewho suffer braindamagefromdiseaseor trauma.
indicates,thereis everyreasonto believe thattheability ElkinsproperlyrecognizesthatMerleau-Ponty'sphenomenological
to forma mentalpictureofthe bodyhad evolvedby this philosophyand the autogenoushypothesissharea pointofdepar-
turein pioneering
neurobiological andpsychological
definitions
of
time. This presumptionis especiallyrelevantsince our bodyimage and bodyschema (Head and Holmes i9ii, Schilder
modern internalizedimage of physical self appears to I935, Tiemersmai989).

are reliable fromtrial to trialwithina given testing inspection.Until we encounterpolished obsidian discs
session, theyare not reliablewith a 2-weekretestin- duringthe Neolithic of whose functionwe can be rea-
terval.This is an intriguingfindingbecause the hand sonablycertain,we have no evidence thatthe abilityto
is so much in use, and one mightexpectit to be per- see lightreflectedfroma two-dimensionalsurfaceas a
ceived with unusual accuracyand stability.Shontz coherent image had been mastered. That we are sur-
(i969) speculated that it is preciselybecause the roundedbymyriadhighlyreflectivesurfacesmade possi-
hand is so much in use and thereforeconstantly ble by centuriesof accumulated technologicalexpertise
changingin shape and apparentsize experientially does not mean that Upper Paleolithic artisansused re-
that one would evolve a concept of it withinwide flectedimages. Withoutthe technologyto supportthe
ratherthan narrow"cognitiveboundaries." practicetherewould have been farless experiencewith
reflectedimages than today,and an appreciationoftheir
We must recognizethat the arms and hands do not pro- potentialin a few properlyilluminatednaturalpools of
duce any one singlecharacteristicretinalimage.In some stillwatercould have been virtuallynonexistent.2 Ifwa-
positions the eye receives a much "thinner,"foreshort- termirrorswere used, why are therevirtuallyno repre-
ened image ofthe armthanmanyrealize.A simpleopti- sentationsoffaces?Nor can we givemuch weightto the
cal principletells us that this must be so, and modern identificationofan engravingfromLaussel as a kneeling
body-schemaresearchsuggeststhatmiddleUpperPaleo- woman and her aqueous reflection;this inherentlyam-
lithic artists may have chosen this experienceas the biguous one-of-a-kind image has with equal conviction
basis fortheirrepresentation. Of course,ifself-generated been identifiedas a scene of sexual intercourse(Luquet
visual informationdoes play a role in determiningthe I930:85), a woman givingbirth(Marshack),and a
characteristicsof PKG-styleimages, representationof mythicJanus-likefigure(Coppens i989).
the hands and arms is doubly conflictedby theirbeing The autogenous hypothesisconfrontsus with basic
both model and instrumentof fabrication. issues about how cultureinteractswith perception.As
Instructorsin beginningart classes routinelyobserve forDobres's concernabout my neglectof the "cultural
thatstudentsdrawingthe human bodyhave the greatest lens throughwhich all seeing is accomplished,"I can
difficulty in masteringthe correctdetailand proportions onlypointout thatthiswas not my subject.The answer
of hands and feet. One typical "sophomoric" solution to my basic experimentalquestion-whether thephysi-
to the difficultyof renderingthese appendagesinvolves cal point of view representedin PKG-stylefemalefigu-
simply eliminatingthem fromthe composition.When rinesis that of selfor other-is not dependentupon the
feetare attempted,the most common erroris to render operationofany culturalfactorsotherthanthosewhich
them too small. Readers may be surprisedto discover limit what we can learn to see. A similarresponsecan
thattheirfeetare equal in lengthto theirforearmsfrom be made to Duhard; our image ofselfmay be interpreted
elbow to wrist.The most commonproblemin beginning by the occipital centersof the brain,where retinaldis-
drawing is "to shrink the extremitiesof the figure" tortionsare filteredout by the objectivestandardsofour
(George Sample, personal communication,November culture,but the physicalpropertiesof the retinalimage
28, i995). Apprehendingthe objective dimensions of are not alteredby the experience.What is lackingis any
one's own body is not an intuitivelyobvious process; evidence that the middle Upper Paleolithic had also
much of what we see is what we have learnedto see. learnedsuch skills. As forthe contentofthe retinalim-
Many expressa more generalpuzzlement about why age, the Mach drawingpresentedbyElkinsis interesting
PKG-style artists would choose to create uncorrected forthe size of the arms and feet.As forartists'creating
representationsof the body when they obviously had self-viewsthat do not involve any diminutionof the
readyaccess to its trueappearance.The illogic or lack of limbs,I would point out that JoanSemmel paints from
fitthese commentatorsperceive seems due less to any photographsratherthan fromdirect self-inspection.It
weakness of the evidence or argumentI presentthan to would appear fromdrawingssuch as Mach's that the
the assumptionthata technologicallyunmediatedview modern camera lens actually eliminates some of the
of one's own body is a "distortion."To thinkin these diminutionnaturallypresentin the retinalimage. The
termspresupposesa culturalstandardbased on the ob- explanationlies in thehistoryofWesternimagemaking.
jective appearanceof otherhuman beingsthe existence The camera lens evolved not so much to capturevisual
ofwhich duringthe middle Upper Paleolithiccannotbe reality as to replicate how we representedreality in
proven.We cannot use the argumentthat we are today paintings.
more familiarwith the point of view of the other in As I have stated, reliance on visual self-inspection
images or that we are more comfortableusing mirrors does not mean thatotherculturalfactorsdid notpartici-
forour self-inspectiontasks to discountthe evidenceof pate in the developmentand spread of PKG-styleim-
artifactsindicating that they were created from the ages. Once discoveredor transcribed, atrophiedarms,for
pointofview ofself.The attributesofthefigurinesmust example, would become, in Davis's words,"a pictorial
be givenpriorityoverlogic-which, as I have attempted
to indicate above, is not always self-evident.
2. Nor can I accept the argumentthat animals todayshow the
Bisson,Duhard,Elkins,and Whitearguesthatthe use abilityto recognizereflectedimagesin laboratoryand domestic
of wateras a mirroris inconsistentwith the emergence situations.Animalsdo notmakemirrors, and neither,
as faras we
of a traditionof representationbased upon visual self- know,did men and womenduringtheUpperPaleolithic.

conventionavailable forreproduction, revision,and ma- ances. Thinningor taperingupper and lower body ele-
nipulation" without necessary involvement of either ments may actuallyhave contributedto breakage.
retinalimage or internalizedbody schema. The autoge- Several argue that thereis too much variabilityto be
nous hypothesisis a radicallynew idea which challenges encompassed by any theory.Few take issue with my
many basic assumptions,but it does not modifywhat critique of prior claims of stylisticheterogeneity,but
we have alreadylearnedabout the culturallifeofvisual some mention pieces they think are inconsistentwith
forms.Identifying what viewpointartiststook to their eitherthe centraltendencyof PKG-styleimages or the
primarysubject in no way eliminatesthe probablecon- contentof self-generated visual information.I omit the
tributionof more traditionalvehicles of stylisticpropa- Mal'ta and Buret' Siberian specimens from consider-
gation. Indeed, representationalconventionsoriginally ation because they are on another continent and, as
developedto createhuman figuresare the logical source Delporte reiterates,belongto a different stylisticgroup.
wheneversimilar stylisticelements are encounteredin Distance in styleand time explainsmy "failure"to dis-
animal images. cuss threeCentralEuropeanfiguresdated to the earlier
The presence of attributesinvisible to the self does Aurignacian.I did considerthe "maleness" ofthe poorly
not necessarily run counter to a tradition of self- preservedpiece from Hohlenstein-Stadel,and Hahn's
representation.White rightlycalls attentionto the im- commentshighlightits problematicnature.This piece
portantrole played by tactile qualities, particularlyin was in such a fragmentary conditionwhen foundthat
the choice ofmaterialsand in the technicalrefinements decades passed beforeit was identifiedas a human fig-
ofsurfacefinish.Indeed,we should expecttactileas well ure, and its restorationrendersany extrapolationfrom
as proprioceptive and kinestheticknowledgeto be repre- its attributestenuous at best. The identificationof the
The Monpazier "Dancing Venus ofGalgenberg"and the "orant"ofGeis-
sented if these pieces are self-portraits.
piece (Marshack's fig. 4) is particularlysuggestivein senklosterleas images of humans is reasonable but by
this. The weight of a pregnantabdomen changes a no means certain,particularlygiventheirpoorpreserva-
woman's centerofgravityand contributesto lowerback tion. Were these two pieces not archaeologicallydated
pain among expectantmothers.In this piece I thinkthe to the Aurignacian,therewould be little formalreason
exaggeratedsway of the lower back and protruding but- to perceivethemas related.Marshackdoes make a con-
tocks,formedas theyare by theevocativeshape "found" vincingcase fora generalsimilarityin the raised or ex-
in a naturalpebble, could easily representthe physical tendedposition of the arms,which could relate to later
discomfortof the woman who selected it. The expres- reliefs,but the resemblanceis accomplishedby different
sionistic manifestation of proprioceptiveand kines- means. In any case, recognizingtwo or threehighlyvari-
thetic informationmay also be seen in its large oval able images of the human figurefromthe Aurignacian
vulva (Marshack's fig. 5). Duhard (I987) has demon- presentsno particulardifficulty to the notion of subse-
stratedthat the physiologicalchangesofthe birthcanal quent emergenceofan integratedtraditionofrepresenta-
duringdeliveryare accuratelyrenderedby this feature, tion in the later Pavlovian,Kostenkian,and Gravettian
and I see no reason thatit could not representthe "feel- cultures.Perhaps effortsto representthe human figure
ings" of the woman who experiencedthis process.The in theAurignacianweresupersededby a moresuccessful
Monpazier piece also reveals new relationshipsamong design solution. There is no requirementthat one de-
PKG-styleimages. Viewed fromabove, it is virtuallyin- scend fromthe other.Yet it should be noted that the
distinguishablefrom"the punchinello" fromGrimaldi sense of animated movement encounteredin the Gal-
(my fig. 9, b) similarlyviewed, even though the two genbergand Geissenklosterlefiguresdiffersfrom the
pieces are radicallydifferent fromthe point of view of static quality of PKG-styleposes. Could this be a mani-
the other. festationofthe "rigid"concentrationsome thinkwould
While I agree with Marshack and Svoboda that the be requiredbythe fixedpointsofview inherentin visual
pragmaticsof techniqueand materialexertan influence self-inspection?
on the design of sculpture,thereis no necessarystruc- In any genuine stylisticclustertherewill always be
tural reason forPKG artiststo have made the specific some artifactsmore or less peripheralto the centralten-
choices they did. In the case of arms, if the technical dency. Some of the factorspertinentto understanding
imperativeis to avoid breakableprojections,what is the such variation in terms of the autogenous hypothesis
advantage of thin attached arms over thick ones-or have alreadybeen introduced,and to thesewe must add
even normal-sizedones? The same responsecan be made those associated with the internaldevelopmentof the
to Marshack's suggestionthat the lozenge composition PKG style.Because of the multipleviewpointsrequired
may reflectthe requirementsof carving.Renderingthe for visual self-inspection,representationaladvances
upper and lower body as thickerand blunterthan nor- should tendto be localized withinthe boundariesofone
mal is also a plausible strategyforeliminatingbreakage or more of these views. One logical conjectureis that
and such a design solution is perhapspreservedin the the earliestautogenousimages involvedregionsclose to
thickened lower extremitiesof the singular figurine the eyes. Certainlymany of the pieces fromthe early
fromEliseevitchi.Marshack calls attentionto the high site of Dolni Vestonice have the stiff,angular,or "ar-
proportionofmissingfeetand heads in the corpus,indi- chaic" quality associated with formativeperiodsin sty-
catingthat the lozenge compositionwas no solution to listic traditions.Even the use of clay as a medium is
the problemof carvingappendagesand otherprotuber- germaneto such a possibility.Because of the speed of

270 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume37, Number2, AprilI996
tonice no. I4 (fig. I2, a), usually describedas a highly

stylizedfemalefigurineconsistingof pendulous breasts
attachedto an abstractrod representing the body,is ob-
servedfromabove, the foreshortened roundedlowerend
can be centeredbetweenthe breaststo be read as a preg-
nant abdomen (fig.I 3). Furthermore, with slightvaria-
tions in the angle of regardone can make the abdomen
rise between the breastsas if-theentirecourse of preg-
nancy were being represented.This latter possibility
adds an intriguingtemporaldimensionto the numerous
~~~b marks and lines engravedon this piece (see Marshack
i99ia:fig. i62). In any case, when viewed in this way,
Dolni Vestoniceno. I4 presentsan organic,realisticren-
deringof the upper frontalbody identical with those
foundin more completeand laterPKG-styleimages.In-
cidentally,I concurwith Cook thatsome pieces incorpo-
rate both male and female sexual references.Seen from
the point of view of the other,the breasts and upper
conical appendage of Dolni Vestonice no. I4 read con-
vincingly as a male member complete with scrotal
asymmetry.Do the multiple viewpoints of this piece
thus reveal an association of self-viewwith woman and
other-viewwith man?
Since the componentsof Dolni Vestonice no. i2 (fig.
I, b), a set ofbilobed pendantbeads, bear such a strong
resemblanceto the breastsand upperconical appendage
of Dolni Vestonice no. I4 and are verysimilarto these
elements of the figurinefromSavignano (see Delporte
I993a:fig. 97), there is every reason to conclude that
they are themselves representationsof breasts. When
the distinctive"mammiform"vestigial canines of the
a c red deer, perforatedfor suspension, are symmetrically
strungin pairs,theyare almost identicalwith the Dolni
Vestonice no. I2 beads (fig. I2, c). That the originof
PKG-style breasts is to be found among Aurignacian
Venusno. 14 (a), (b)
So-calledhyperstylized
FI G. I12.
body ornamentsis supportedby two lines of evidence.
one ofthebilobedpendantbeads collectivelyknown First,red deer canines and the breastsof PKG-styleim-
as Venusno. 12 fromDolni Vestonice(Pavlovian), I ages are very similar in shape, and both lack nipples.
and (c) two "mammiform" red deercanines The reason is self-evidentforthe formerbut farless so
suspendedin hypothesizedsimilarbilobedfashion for the latter. Second, Bisson and White observe that
(Aurignacian). some figurinesare perforated forsuspensionas bodyor-
naments,and while theirpresumedlocation on the up-
execution and ease of correctionit affords, its earlyuse per frontalsurfaceof the body (eithersewn to clothing
at Pavlovian sites suggestsan exploratorymilieu from or suspended fromthe neck) would have made them
which an early formof the PKG style emerged.What available forfondling,it would also have mimickedthe
Cook sees in Dolni Vestonice no. i as the result of view of one's own body. Similarly,wearinga bilobed or
face-on observationinconsistentwith the autogenous double breast pendantbead reproducesthe perspective
principle (see my fig. i, g) I see as early attentionto fromwhich a woman views her own breasts.
representingthe upperfrontalsurfaceof the body-the Finally,not all variationsencounteredin middle Up-
firstregionencounteredwhen the head is lowered.Only per Paleolithic images of the human figureneed to be
in the breastsand abdomen of this piece do we encoun- related directlyto the central tendencyof the autoge-
ter any observationalaccuracy; the lower body has the nous principle. Other human beings were certainly
conceptualaspect of a flattenedgeometriccone, and no available to be observed,althoughthe often-mentioned
attemptwas made to renderthe buttocks. fragmentfromPetrkovicein Moravia is the only un-
Additionalevidence thatawarenessof the upperfron- equivocal example that can be cited. It is not until the
tal surfaceof the femalebodyled in the developmentof Magdalenian that representationof the other becomes
the autogenousimage is to be foundin some ofthe most at all common.
enigmatic female representationsfrom Dolni Vesto- Althoughmany commentatorsraise questions about
nice-the so-calledVenusesnos. I aand I 4, whichCook the autogenous hypothesis,few challenge the evidence
also sees as inconsistentwith my theory.If Dolni Ves- I presentthatthese images forma coherentstyle.I con-

MC DERMOTT in Female Figurines1 27I
Self-Representation
The "upper body" of Dolni Vestoniceno. 14 as seen fromabove (froma replica by the author);
FIG. I 3.
compare with the same view of Willendorfno. I (fig.5,b).
tinue to thinkit highlysignificantthat the firstrepre- Identifyingwherethe artiststoodwhen creatinga rep-

sentations of the human body to spread the lengthof resentationalwork does not tell us what it meant to
UpperPaleolithicEuropeinvolve a distinctiveset ofan- its creatoror how it was used or seen by others.The
atomical omissions and distortions.Most choose to see autogenous point of view becomes but one more vari-
these as a logical but essentiallyarbitraryconsequence able to consider.Even ifPKG-styleimages embodyreal-
of symbolic or psychologicallymediated activity(Du- istic informationof practicalbenefitto women's lives,
hardI995). Yet such interpretations typicallyfailto con- this does not precludetheirfunctioningin any number
siderall such departuresor to explain why this particu- of symbolic,mythic,or ritualisticcontexts.Marshack's
lar set of vertical and horizontal distortionsand not and Cook's observationsabout the importanceof body
others. For example, why should most figurineshave ornaments,which had to have been carvedafterthe ba-
elevated posteriors? Proprioceptive and kinesthetic sic anatomy,seem verymuch in keepingwith such pos-
pathwayscould easily be involved,forthereis an inevi- sibilities.3The criticalrole of associated contextualand
table tendencyto elevate the buttockstowardthe eyes empiricalattributesin futurestudiesis certainlynot di-
wheneverone attemptstheirvisual inspection.Further- minishedeither;I was unawarethatI had suggestedoth-
more, the glutei medii are typicallyfarlargerthan the erwise.The autogenoushypothesisdoes affectour inter-
buttocksproperand are oftenmistakenforthem,pro- pretationof the attributesof the figurines.Insofaras
ducing the upside-down configurationencounteredat the observedanatomical omissions and distortionsare
Lespugueand certainothersites (Luquet I934). Here the consistentwith self-inspectionand the internalizedop-
furrowof the lower spine between the enlargedglutei erationofhuman memoryor bodyschema,theycannot
medii is mistakenforthe glutealcleavage separatingthe be said by themselvesto be proofof symbolicintent.
buttocks.This is perhaps what White has referenceto
when he speaks about the vertebralcolumn's beingrep-
resented.While White's presentationof Kostenkino. i
in a supine position could account forsome flattening ReferencesCited
or lateraldisplacementoftissue (White'sfig.4), it could
not elevate the inferiorterminalmarginof that region ABRAMOVA, Z. A. I960. Elementsofdressand adornmenton
to the level of the navel. Nor is it likely that a supine carvedhumanfiguresfromtheUpperPaleolithicin Europe
birthingposition is indicated,since this became wide- and Siberia.Materialyi Issedovaniepo Arkheologii
SSR
79:I26-40. [AM]
spreadonly with the adventof modernEuropeanmedi-
cal practices.During the Upper Paleolithic a standing,
kneeling,or squattingposition would have been more 3. The Lespuguepiece preservesat least one exampleofa waist-
likely (WitkowskiI889). bandoccludedbythebody.

272 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996
. I967a. L'artmobilierpal6olithiqueen URSS. Quartar Human bioculturalchangein the UpperPleistocene.Editedby

I8:99-125. E. Trinkaus,pp. 201-27. BritishArchaeologicalReportsInterna-
. I967b. Palaeolithicartin theU.S.S.R.ArcticAnthropol- tionalSeriesI64.
ogy17:1-179. . I985. "Ritualcommunication, social elaboration,and the
.1995. L'artpaleolithiqued'Europeorientaleet Siberie. variabletrajectoriesofPaleolithicmaterialculture,"in Prehis-
Grenoble:J6r6me Million.[PGB] torichunter-gatherers: The emergenceofculturalcomplexity.
AB SOLO N, K. I939. "Nouvellesd6couvertes de statuettesmode- EditedbyT. Douglas Priceand JamesA. Brown,pp. 299-323.
l6es dans l'aurignaciende Moravie,"in M6langesde pr6histoire New York:AcademicPress.
et d'anthropologie offertsau Prof.ComteH. Begouen,pp. . I987. New approachesin the searchformeaning?A re-
249-55. Toulouse. view ofresearchin Paleolithicart.JournalofFieldArchaeol-
statuettesand draw-
. I949. The diluvialanthropomorphic ogyI4:4I3-30.
ings,especiallythe so-calledVenusstatuettes, discoveredin COOK, j. n.d. "MistakenaboutEve?" in Womenin industry and
Moravia.ArtibusAsiae 12:2oi-2o. technology:Currentresearchand themuseumexperience.Ed-
ANDERSON, RICHARD. 1979. Artin primitive societies.Engle- itedbyB. Wood.London:MuseumofLondon.[jc]
wood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall. [MAD] C*O P P E N S, M. Y. I 989 . L'ambiguitedes doublesVenusdu
BAHN, P. G. I986. No sex,please,we'reAurignacians. Rock Art Gravettien de France.ComptesRendusdes Seances de l'Acade-
Research3:99-I20. [PGB] mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,
July-December,
pp.
. I993. "The 'dead wood stage'ofprehistoric artstudies: 566-7I.
Styleis not enough,"in Rock artstudies:Thepost-stylistic DAMISCH, HUBERT. I994. The originofperspective.Translated
era,or Wheredo we go fromhere?EditedbyM. Lorblanchet byJohnGoodman.Cambridge:MIT Press.[WD]
and P. G. Bahn,pp. I -59. OxbowMonograph35. [PGB] DAVIS, WHITNEY. I989. The canonicaltradition in ancient
BAHN, P. G., AND J. VERTUT. I988. ImagesoftheIce Age. Egyptianart.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.[WD]
New York:Factson File. . I994. The subjectin the scene ofrepresentation.
ArtBul-
BARTON, G. A. 1940. The Palaeolithicbeginnings ofreligion: letin 76:570-75. [WD]
An interpretation. ProceedingsoftheAmericanPhilosophical DE LAURETIS, I987. Technologies
THERESA. ofgender:Essays
Society82:13 1-49. on theory,
film,and fiction.Bloomington:
IndianaUniversity
BEGOUEN, H. Ig29a. A proposde l'idee f6condit6
dans l'icono- Press. [MAD]
graphieprehistorique.Bulletin de la Societe PrehistoriqueFran- DELPORTE, H. 1960. Une nouvellestatuette pal6olithique:La
qaise 26:197-99. V6nusde Tursac.L'Anthropologie 63:233-47.
. i929b. The magicoriginofprehistoric art.Antiquity . i982. Surun rognonde silex,en formde statuettef6mi-
3:5-19. nine,provenantdu gisementdu Pr6-des-Forges a Marsangy
BISSON, M. S., AND P. BOLDUC. 1994. Previously undescribed (Yvonne).Bulletinde la SocietePrehistorique Fran,aise
figurinesfromthe Grimaldi Caves. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 79:.275-78. [AM]
35:458-68. [MSB] . I993a. New edition.L'imagede la femmedans l'artpre-
BISSON, M. S., N. TISNERAT, AND R. WHITE. I996. Radiocar- historiques.Paris:Picard.
bon dates fromthe Upper Paleolithic of the Barma Grande, Li- . I993b. "Gravettianfemalefigurines: A regionalsurvey,"
guria,Italy.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 37:I56-62. [MSB] in BeforeLascaux: The complexrecordoftheearlyUpperPa-
BISSON, M. S., AND R. WHITE. I996. Femaleimageryfromthe leolithic.EditedbyH. Knecht,A. Pike-Tay,and R. White,pp.
Paleolithic:The case of Grimaldi.Culture. In press. [RW] 243-57. Boca Raton:CRC Press.
BOSINSKI, G. I99I. The representationof female figuresin the . I993C. "Preface,"in R6alismede l'imagefeminine pal6o-
RhinelandMagdalenian. Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety lithique,by J-P.Duhard.Cahiersdu Quaternairei9.
5I:5I-64. D 'ERRICO, F.
1I989. Palaeolithic lunar calendars: A case of wish-
BOSINSKI, Die Menschendarstel-
G., AND G. FISHER. I974. fulthinking? CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:II7-I8.
derAusgrabungvon I968. Wiesbaden:
lungenvon Gonnersdorf DICKSON, D. BRUCE. I990. The dawn of belief:Religionin the
Franz Steiner Verlag. UpperPaleolithicofsouthwestern Europe.Tucson: University
BOZZI, v. I988. The bodyin question. Psychology Today ofArizonaPress.
22(2): I0. DOBRES, M-A. i992a. Re-presentationsofPalaeolithicvisualim-
BREUIL, H. I95.2. Fourhundredcenturiesofcave art.Montig- agery:Simulacraand theiralternatives.
KroeberAnthropologi-
nac: Centre d'Etudes et de Documentation Prehistoriques. cal SocietyPapers73-74:I-.23.
BREUIL, H., AND D. PEYRONY. I930. Statuette feminine aurig- . I992b. "Re-considering Venus figurines: A feminist-
nacienne de Sireuil. Revue Anthropologique 40:44-47. in Ancientimages,ancientthought:The
inspiredre-analysis,"
BROOKE-ROSE, CHRISTINE. I986. "Woman as semiotic object," archaeologyofideology.EditedbyA. S. Goldsmith,S. Garvie,
in Thefemalebodyin Westernculture.Editedby S. R. Sulei- D. Selin,and J.Smith,pp. 245-62. Calgary:University
ofCal-
man, pp. 305-I6. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press.[MAD] garyArchaeological Association.
BURKITT, M. C. I934. Some reflectionson the Aurignacian cul- . n.d. "Venusfigurines,"
in Oxfordcompanionto archaeol-
ture and its female statuettes. Eurasia SeptentrionalisAntiqua ogy.EditedbyB. Fagan.New York:OxfordUniversity Press.In
9:II3-22. press. [MAD]
CHAUVET, JEAN-MARIE, BRUNEL DESCHAMPS, ELIETTE DUHARD, j-P. I987a. EdouardPietteavaitraison:La "figurine
a
HILAIRE, AND CHRISTIAN HILAIRE. I995. La grotte la ceinture"de Brassempouyest bienun homme.Bulletin
Chauveta VallonPont-D'Arc.Paris:Seuil. [JH] S.A.S.O. 22: 207-I-2. [JPD]
CLOTTES, J. I97I. La decouverted'une statuettefemininepaleo- . I987b. La statuettede Monpazierrepr6sente-t-elleune
lithiquea Monpazier(Dordogne).PrehistoireAriegeoise parturiente?Prehistoire Ariegeoise42: I 55-63. [AM]
26:77-82. [AM] . I988. Peut-onparlerd'obesit6chez les femmesfigurees
CLOTTES, J., AND E. CEROU. I970. La statuette
f6mininede dans les oeuvrespari6taleset mobilierespaleolithiques?Prehis-
Monpazier(Dordogne).Bulletinde la SocietePrehistorique toireAriegeoise43:85-I03.
Franqaise 67:435-44. . i989a. Le r6alisme physiologique des figurationsf6mi-
CLOTTES, JEAN, ET AL. I995. Dates radiocarbone
pourla grotte ninessculpteesdu Pal6olithiquesup6rieur en France.Ph.D.
Chauvet-Pont-D'Arc. International Newsletter on Rock Art diss.,University ofBordeaux,Bordeaux,France.[JPD]
II:I-2. [JH] I989b. La gestuelledu membresuperieurdansles figura-
COLLINS, D., AND J. ONIANS. I978. The origins of art. Art His- tionsf6minines sculpteespaleolithiques.RockArtResearch
toryI:I-25. 6:I05-I7. [JPD]
CONKEY, M. W. I983. "On theorigins of Paleolithicart:A re- . iggoa. Le corpsfemininet son langagedansl'artpal6o-
view and some critical thoughts," in The Mousterian legacy: lithique. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology9:24I-S S * [JC,JPD]

Self-Representation
i1ggob."Peut-onparlerd'un langagedu corpsdansles . I989b. The typologyoffemalefigurines

oftheKostenki
femininespal6olithiques?"in Actes du Colloque
figurations Paleolithicculture.SovietAnthropology
and Archeology
surles Origineset l'Evolutiondu LangageHumain,Societe 27:32-94.
d'Etudeset de RecherchesPrehistoriquesdes Eyzies,I989, pp. Artofthemammothhunters:ThefindsfromAv-
.I 995.
II3-28. Bulletin 39. [JPD] deevo.OxbowMonograph49. [PGB]
Ii99Ia. The shapeofPleistocenewomen.Antiquity HADINGHAM, E. 1979. Secretsof theIce Age: The worldof the
65:55.2-6I. cave artists. New York: Walker.
. iggib. L'adipositede la femmegravettienne (d'apr6sle HAHN, J. 197I. La statuette
masculinede la grottedu Hoh-
modelefrancais). BulletinS.A.S.O. 26:33-42. [JPD] lenstein-Stadel (Wurtemmberg).L'Anthropologie 75:233-44.
. 1993a. UpperPaleolithicfiguresas a reflection ofhuman , I986. Kraftund Aggression.ArchaeologicaVenatoria7.
morphology and social organization. Antiquity67:83-91. [JH]
1993b. Realismede l'imagefemininepaleolithique.Ca- .1993. "Aurignacianartin CentralEurope,"in BeforeLas-
hiersdu QuaternaireI9. caux: The complexrecordoftheearlyUpperPaleolithic.Ed-
. 1993c. Etudecomparative des statuettesf6minines de Sir- itedbyH. Knecht,A. Pike-Tay,and R. White,pp. 229-41.
euil et Tursac(Dordogne).Gallia Prehistoire 35:283-91. [Jc] Boca Raton:CRC Press.
1 994. L'identite physiologique, un elementd'interpreta- HAHN, J., W. VON KOENIGSWALD, E. WAGNER, AND W. WIL-
tiondes figurations feminines paleolithiques.Trabajosde Pre- LIE. 1977. Das Geissenklosterle
de Blaubeuren,ald-Donau-
historia5SI. [JPD] Kreiseine altsteinzeitliche Hohlenstation dermittleren alb.
. I995. De la confusion entremorphologie et g6om6trie Fundberichte aus Baden-Wiirttemberg, vol. 3, Fossilverge-
dans les figurations f6minines gravettienneset du suppos6 sellschaflungen, no. 49, pp. 14-37. Stuttgart:E. Schweizer-
stylegravettien. Bulletinde la SocietePrehistorique Fran,aise. bart'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung.
In press.[PGB, JC, JPD] HANCAR, F. 1939-40. Zum problemderVenusstatueten im eu-
EATON, R. L. 1978. The evolutionoftrophy hunting.Carnivore rasiatischenJungpalaolithikum. PraehistorischeZeitschrift30-
I|I): IIO-I.21 3i:85-i56.
. 1979. Meditationson the originoftrophyism.
Carnivore HARDING, J. R. 1976. CertainUpperPalaolithic"Venus" statu-
2(I): 6-8. ettesconsideredin relationto thepathologicalcondition
ELKINS, J. 1994. Thepoeticsofperspective. Ithaca:CornellUni- knownas massivehypertrophy ofthebreasts.Man 11:271-72.
versityPress.[JE] HEAD, H., AND G. HOLMES. I9II. Sensorydisturbances from
FEUSTEL, R. I967. Statuettes f6minines pal6olithiquesde la R6- cerebrallesions.Brain34:102-254.
publiqueDemocratiqueAllemande.Bulletinde la SocietePre- HESTER, G. A. 1970. Effectsofactivemovementon body-part es-
historiqueFran,aise67:I2-I6. timates.Perceptualand MotorSkills 30:607-13.
FISHER, S. I986. The development and structure ofthebodyim- JELINEK, J. 1975. Thepictorialencyclopedia of theevolutionof
age. Hillsdale,N.J.:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. man. London:Hamlyn.
FORGE, ANTHONY. 1970. "Learning to see in New Guinea,"in .I988. Considerations sur l'art paleolithique mobilier.
Socialization:The approachfromsocial anthropology. Edited L'Anthropologie 92:203-38.
by P. Mayer,pp. 269-9i. London:Tavistock.[MAD] K L I M A, B. I989. "Figurliche Plastikenaus derpalaolithischen
FOUCAULT, MICHEL. 1975. The birthoftheclinic:An archaeol- Siedlungvon Pavlov,"in Religionund Kult,pp. 8I-90. Berlin:
ogyofmedicalperception.London:Tavistock.[MAD] DeutscheVerlagderWissenschaften. [JS]
GAMBLE, C. I98 2. Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic soci- KNIGHT, C. I99I. Blood relations:Menstruation and theorigins
ety.Man 17:92-107. ofculture.New Haven and London:Yale University Press.[Jc]
. I983. "Culture and society in the Upper Palaeolithic of KNIGHT, C., C. POWER, AND I. WATTS. I995. The humansym-
Europe,"in Hunter-gatherer economyin prehistory:A Euro- bolicrevolution:A Darwinianaccount.CambridgeArchaeolog-
pean perspective.Editedby G. Bailey,pp. 2oI-II. Cambridge: ical Journal5(I):75-114. [Jc]
CambridgeUniversity Press. KUHN, H. 1936. Menschendarstellungen im Palaolithikum.
. I986. The Palaeolithicsettlement ofEurope.Cambridge: Zeitschrift farRassenkunde4:225-47.
CambridgeUniversity Press. LACAN, JACQUES. 1977. "The mirrorstage as formativeof the
GIEDION, S. i962. The eternalpresent:The beginningsofart. functionoftheI as revealedin psychoanalyticexperience
BollingenSeries35-6-I.New York:PantheonBooks. ['9491,"in Ecrits:A selection.TranslatedbyAlan Sheridan,
GIMBUTAS, M. I98I. "Vulvas,breasts,and buttocksofthegod- pp. 1-7.New York: Norton. [WD]
dess creatress:Commentary on theoriginsofart,"in The LALANNE, J. G. i9i2. Bas reliefsa figurationhumaine de l'abri
shape of thepast. Editedby G. Buccellatiand C. Speroni,pp. sous roche de Laussel (Dordogne). L'Anthropologie
i6-42. Berkeley: University of California Press. 23:142-47.
. i982. The goddessesand gods ofold Europe:6500-3500 LALANNE, J. G., AND J. BOUYSSONIE. 1941-46. Le gisement
BC. Berkeley: University of California Press. pal6olithique de Laussel. L'Anthropologie
50:117-63.
GOLDMAN, B. I960-63. Typologyofthemother-goddess
figu- LAQUER, THOMAS. I990. Makingsex: Bodyand genderfrom
rines.fahrbuchfurPrahistorischeund Ethnographische
Kunst the Greeksto Freud.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
20: 8-I 5. [MAD]
GOMEZ-TABANERA, J. M. 1978. Les statuettesfeminines
paleo- LAYTON, R. i992. "Ethnographic analogy and the two archaeo-
dans le mondepre-
lithiquesdites"Venus"et leursignification logicalparadigms,"
in Ancientimages,ancientthought:Thear-
historique. Gij6n, Asturias: ImprimerieLove. chaeology of ideology. Edited by A. S. Goldsmith, S. Garvie, D.
GRAZIO SI, P. 1939. Une nouvelle statuette pr6historiquedecou- Selin,and J.Smith,pp. 2II-2I. Calgary: Universityof Calgary
verteen Italie.Bulletinde la SocietePrehistorique
Fran,aise Archaeological Association.
36:159-62. LEONOVA, N. B. 1994. The Upper Paleolithic of the Russian
. I960. Palaeolithicart.New York: McGraw-Hill. steppezone. Journalof WorldPrehistory 8:i69-2io. [ST]
GUTHRIE, R. D. I984. "Ethological observations fromPalaeo- LEROI-GOURHAN, A. i964-65. Le gesteet la parole.Paris:
lithicart,"in La contribution de la zoologieet de 1'ethologie
a AlbinMichel.
l'interpretationde l'art des peupleschasseursprehistoriques .I967. Treasuresof prehistoric
art.New York: HarryN.
(3e Colloque de la SocieteSuisse des SciencesHumaines).Ed- Abrams. [AM]
itedbyH-G. Bandi,W. Huber,M-R. Sauter,and B. Sitter,pp. . i968a. The artofprehistoric
man in westernEurope.Lon-
35-73. Fribourg:Editions Universitaires. don: Thames and Hudson.
GVOZDOVER, M. I989a. Ornamental decoration on artifactsof . I968b. The evolutionofPaleolithicart.Scientific
Ameri-
theKostenkiculture.SovietAnthropology
and Archeology can 2i8(2):59-60.
27:8-31. .1971. Observations technologiques sur le rythmestatu-

274 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996
aire.Echangeset Communications, pp.

MelangesLevi-Strauss, Eyzies(Dordogne):Stratigraphy.AmericanSchoolofPrehis-
658-76. [HD] toricResearchBulletin3'.
to
. i982. The dawn ofEuropeanart:An introduction MUNMAN, ROBERT. I985. Optical corrections
in thesculpture
Palaeolithiccave painting.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity ofDonatello.TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSoci-
Press. ety75(2). [JE]
LEVY, G. R. 1948. The gate ofhorn:A studyofthereligiouscon- NASH, H. I969. The judgmentofbodylandmarkheights.Ge-
ceptionsof theStoneAge,theirinfluenceuponEuropean neticPsychology Monographs79:2S I-96.
thought.London:Faberand Faber. NELSON, S. M. I993. "DiversityoftheUpperPaleolithic'Venus'
LEWIS-WILLIAMS, DAVID, AND THOMAS DOWSON. I988. figurinesand archeologicalmythology," in Genderin cross-
The signsofall times:Entopticphenomenain UpperPalaeo- culturalperspective.Editedby C. B. Brettelland C. F. Sargent.
lithicart.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 29:20I-45. [MAD] EnglewoodCliffs:Prentice-Hall.
LUQUET, G. H. I930. The artand religionoffossilman. New NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH, CHRISTINE. I988. Vorberichtuber
Haven: Yale UniversityPress. die Rettungsgrabungen an derAurignacien-Station Stratzing/
Journalde Psychologie
. I934. Les Venuspal6olithiques. Krems-Rehberg in den JahrenI985-I988: Zum Neufundeiner
3I:429-60. weiblichenStatuette.Fundberichte aus Osterreich26:73-84.
MC COID, C. H., AND L. D. MC DERMOTT. n.d.Towardsdeco- [PGB, AM]
lonizinggender:Femalevisionin theEuropeanUpperPaleo- . I989. Zum NeufundeinerweiblichenStatuettebei den
lithic.AmericanAnthropologist. In press. Rettungsgrabungen an derderAurignacien-Station Stratzing.
MC DERMOTT, L. D. I985. Self-generated information and repre- Germania67:55I-60. [HD]
sentationofthehumanfigureduringtheEuropeanUpperPa- NEUMANN, E. 1953. The greatmother:An analysisofthearche-
leolithic.Ph.D. diss.,UniversityofKansas,Lawrence,Kans. type.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press.
. I987. The double-breastpendantand thegoddesswith NIEDHORN, U. I990. The lady fromBrassempouy: A fake-a
threebreasts:Evidenceforstylisticcontinuity betweenPaleo- hoax?Isernhagener Studienzur friihenSkulptur3. [PGB]
lithicand earlyhistoricfemalerepresentations. Paperpre- OTTE, M., AND L. H. KEELEY. I990. The impact of regionalism
sentedto the I4th AnnualMeetingoftheMidwestArtHistory on Palaeolithic studies. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 3I:577-82.
Society,AnnArbor,Mich.,March27. PALES, L., AND M. T. DE ST.-PEREUSE. I976. Les gravures de
. I988. The proportionsofUpperPaleolithicfemalefigu- la Marche.2, Les humaines.Paris:Ophrys.
rines:Obesity,or the structure ofautogenousvisualinforma- PASSEMARD, L. I938. Les statuettes
feminines paleolithiques
tion?Paperpresentedto theSymposiumon Culturaland Physi- dites Venussteatopyges. Nimes: Imprimerie Coop6rative"La
ologicalAspectsofFatnessand Obesityat the i2th Laborieuse."
International CongressofAnthropological and Ethnological Sci- PFEIFFER, J. E. i982. The creativeexplosion:An inquiryinto
ences,Zagreb,Yugoslavia,July26. theoriginsofartand religion.New York:Harperand Row.
. I99I. Styleand gender:The attributes ofUpperPaleo- PIETTE. E. I895. La stationde Brassempouy et les statuetteshu-
lithichumanfigures.Paperpresentedto the i8thAnnualMeet- mainsde la p6riodeglyptique.L'Anthropologie 6:i29-5I.
ingoftheMidwestArtHistorySociety,University ofKansas, . i902. Gravuredu Mas d'Azil et statuettes de Menton.
Lawrence,Kans.,April3-5. Bulletinset Memoiresde la Societed'Anthropologie de Paris,
MACH, ERNST. i886. Beitragezur AnalyzederEmpfindungen. Series 5, 3:77I-79.
Jena:GustavFisher.[JE] POINTON, MARCIA. I990. Naked authority:The bodyin West-
MACK, R. T. i992. "Genderedsite: Archaeology, representation, ernpaintingI830-I908. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
and thefemalebody,"in Ancientimages,ancientthought: Press.[MAD]
The archaeologyofideology.EditedbyA. S. Goldsmith, S. Gar- P O L L O C K, G R I S E L D A. I 9 87.
"What'swrongwithimagesof
vie,D. Selin,and J.Smith,pp. .235-44. Calgary:University of women?"in Lookingon: Images offemininity in-thevisual
CalgaryArchaeological Association. artsand media. Editedby R. Betterton, pp. 40-48. New York:
MARSHACK, A. I986. Une figurine de Grimaldi"redecouverte": Pandora.[MAD]
Analyseet discussion.L'Anthropologie 90:807-I4. [AM] PRASLOV, N. D. I986. Neue Frauenstatuetten des Palaolithi-
. I988. An Ice Age ancestor?National Geographic kumsaus Kostenki(UdSSR).Das Altertum32:I4-I7.
I74:478-8I. . I985. L'artdu Paleolithiquesup6rieur a l'est de l'Europe.
. iggia. 2d edition.The roots of civilization. Mt. Kisco, L'Anthropologie 89:i8i-92.
N.Y.: Moyer Bell. PUTNAM, j. I988. The searchformodernhumans.National
symbol:A
. iggib. The femaleimage,a "time-factored" GeographicI74:438-77.
study in style and modes of image use in the European Upper RADMILLI, A. M. I966-69. The chronological
positionofthe
Palaeolithic.ProceedingsofthePrehistoric
Society VenusesofParabita.fahrbuch farPrdhistorische and Ethno-
57:I7-3I. graphischeKunst22:io-i5.
. I992. "The analyticalproblemsofsubjectivity
in the REGNAULT, F. i9i2. Les repr6sentations
de l'obesitedansl'art
makerand user,"in The limitationsofarchaeologicalknowl- pr6historique. Bulletinde la Societed'Anthropologie de Paris,
edge.EditedbyT. Shayand J.Clottes,pp. I8I-2Io. Liege:Uni- Series 6, 3:35-39.
versit6de Liege.[AM] . I924. Les representations de femmesdans l'artpaleolith-
. I994. Commenton: Symboling and theMiddle-Upper ique sont st6atomeres,non st6atopyges.Bulletin de la Societe
byA. M. Byers.CURRENT ANTHROPOL-
Palaeolithictransition, Prehistorique Fran,aise2I:84-88.
OGY 35:386-87. [AM] REINACH, S. I898. Statuettede femmenue decouverte dansune
MELLAART, J. I967. (QatalHiiyiik:A Neolithictownin Ana- des grottesde Menton.L'Anthropologie 9:26-3I.
tolia. London: Thames and Hudson. 1.I903. L'art et la magie:A proposdes peintureset des gra-
. I975. The Neolithicof theNear East. New York: vuresde l'age du renne.L'Anthropologie I4:257-66.
Scribner. RICE, P. C. 198I. Prehistoric Venuses:Symbolsofmotherhood
MELLARS, P. I989. Majorissues in theemergenceofmodernhu- or womanhood?JournalofAnthropological Research
mans. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:349-85. 37:402-I4.
MERLEAU-PONTY, MAURICE. i962. Phenomenology
ofpercep- ROSENFELD, A. I977. "Profile figures:Schematizationof the hu-
tion. Translated by C. Smith. London: Routledge and Kegan man figurein the Magdalenian culture of Europe," in Form in
Paul. [JE] indigenousart:Schematization in theartofAboriginalAustra-
I 993. The Merleau-Ponty reader:Philosophyand paint- lia and prehistoric
Europe.EditedbyP. J.Ucko,pp. 90-IIO.
ing.Editedby Galen A. Johnson. Uni-
Evanston:Northwestern Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginalStudies.
versityPress. [JE] SACCASYN-DELLA SANTA, E. I947. Les figures
humainesdu Pa-
MOVIUS, H. L., JR. I977. ExcavationsoftheAbriPataud,Les leolithiquesuperieureurasiatique.Antwerp:De Sikkel.

Self-Representation
SAINT-PERIER, R. DE. i922. Statuette de femme st6atopygede- sis ofexperienceand its continuity. Princeton:PrincetonUni-
couvertea Lespugue(Haute-Garonne).
L'Anthropologie versityPress.[JEJ
32:36i-8i. UCKO, P. j. I968. Anthropomorphic figurinesofPredynastic
SCHILDER, P. I935. The image and appearanceofthehuman Egyptand NeolithicCretewithcomparative materialfromthe
body.New York:International Unversity Press. prehistoric Near East and mainlandGreece.RoyalAnthropo-
SCHMID, E. I988. StatuetteeinerFraumitdem Kopfeiner logicalInstituteOccasionalPaper24.
Lowin. UlmerMuseum,Das Kunstwerk des Monats (Ok- UCKO, P. J., AND A. ROSENFELD. I967. Paleolithiccave art.
tober),no. II2, pp. I-2. New York:McGraw-Hill.
. I989. Die altsteinzeitliche Elfenbeinstatuette aus der VANDIVER, P. B., 0. SOFFER, B. KLIMA, AND J. SVOBODA.
Hohle Stadelim Hohlensteinbei Asselfingen, Alb-Donau- I989. The originsofceramictechnology at Dolni Vestonice,
Kreis. Fundberichte aus Baden-Wiirttemberg I4:33-96. [JH] Czechoslovakia. Science246:ioo2-8.
SCHUCHHARDT, C. i926. 2d edition.Alteuropa.Berlin:de WASHBURN, DOROTHY, 1994. "Style,perception,and geome-
Gruyter. try,"in Style,society,and person:Archaeologicaland ethno-
SEMENOV, S. A. I964. Prehistoric technology: An experimental logicalperspectives. Editedby C. Carrand J.Neitzel,pp. ioi-
studyof theoldesttoolsand artefacts fromtracesofmanufac- 22. New York:PlenumPress.[MAD]
tureand wear.Bath:Adamsand Dart. [AM] WHITE, R. i982. The manipulation and use ofburinsin incision
SHONTZ, F. C. I969. Perceptualand cognitive aspectsofbody and notation.Canadian JournalofAnthropology a: I29-35.
experience.New York:AcademicPress. . I986. Dark caves, brightvisions:Lifein Ice-AgeEurope.
SLADE, P. D. I977. Awarenessofbodydimensionsduring preg- New York:AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory.
nancy: An analogue study. Psychological Medicine7:245-52. . I989. Visual thinking in theIce Age. Scientific American
SLADE, O., AND G. F. M. RUSSELL. I973. Awareness of body di- .26I:9 2-99.
mensionsin anorexianervosa.PsychologicalMedicine igg2a. Beyondart:Towardan understanding
oftheori-
3:I88-99. ginsofmaterialrepresentation
in Europe.AnnualReviewof
SOFFER, 0. I985. The UpperPaleolithicoftheRussianPlain. Anthropology 2I:537-64.
New York:AcademicPress. . i992b. Une Venus probl6matique trouv6e au Minneapolis
. I987. "UpperPaleolithicconnubia,refugia,and thear- InstituteofArts,Minneapolis,Minnesota,USA. Bulletinde la
chaeologicalrecordfromeasternEurope,"in The Pleistocene SocietePrehistoriqueFrang9aise89:.282-88. [RWJ
Old World:Regionalperspectives. Editedby 0. Soffer,
pp. . Igg6a. "Substantialacts: Frommaterialsto meaningin
333-48. New York: Plenum Press. UpperPaleolithicrepresentation," in Beyondart: UpperPaleo-
SOFFER, O., P. VANDIVER, B. KLIMA, AND J. SVOBODA. I993. lithicsymbolism.EditedbyD. Stratmann, M. Conkey,and 0.
"The pyrotechnology ofperformance
art:MoravianVenuses Soffer.San Francisco:CaliforniaAcademyofSciences.In press.
and wolverines,"in BeforeLascaux: The complexrecordofthe [RW]
earlyUpperPaleolithic.EditedbyH. Knecht,A. Pike-Tay,and . Igg6b. "Les imagesfeminines paleolithiques:Un coup
R. White,pp. 259-75. Boca Raton:CRC Press. d'oeil surquelquesperspectives americaines,"in La dame de
STONE. M. I976. WhenGod was a woman.New York: Dorset Brassempouy:Ses ancetres,ses contemporaines, ses heritieres.
Press. EditedbyH. Delporte.Liege:ERAUL. In press.[RWJ
TARASSOV, L. M. I97I. La doublestatuette paleolithiquede Ga- . I996c. Actesde substance:De la matiereau sens dansla
garino. Quartar.22:I57-63. repr6sentation pal6olithique.Techne3. In press.[RWJ
TIEMERSMA, D. I989. Bodyschema and bodyimage:An inter- WITKOWSKI, G.-J. I889. Histoiredes accouchements chez tous
disciplinaryand philosophicalstudy.Amsterdam: Swetsand les peuples.Paris:G. Steinheil.
Zeitlinger. Z CT Z, L. F. I95 5. Idolespal6olithiquesde l'etreandrogyne. Bulle-
TRIMPI, WESLEY, I983. Muses ofone mind: The literary
analy- tinde la SocietePrehistorique Frangaise48:333-40.


The University of Chicago Press Wenner-Gren Foundation For Anthropological Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The University of Chicago Press Wenner-Gren Foundation For Anthropological Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines

Author(s): LeRoy McDermott

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

The world's oldest survivingworks of artfashioned

in Upper Paleolithic of bioculturalevolution. Questions about theirmean-

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

ance-either one's own body or that of anotherhuman The FirstHuman Images

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

tine art fromthe naturalisticthirddimensionof pagan TABLE I

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

"empiricalvariability"(Dobres i992b:249) ortrueheter- rennialappeal-although sometimeswith peculiarcon-

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

withstandeven cursoryscrutiny.Gvozdover(Ig8gb:56) at Brassempouy.Afterexaminingthesepieces,I join Lu-

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

ness of threeof the remainingfour(Brassempouy,Hoh- lithic,and when males do emergeduringthe Magdalen-

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

FIG. 5. Autogenous visual informationof the-upperbody. Top, photographicsimulation of what a

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

bottom,samvie offgrn rm epg (at

FIG. 6. Oblique aerial views of frontbody surfaces.Top, 30o-year-old

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

gle in several figurines.'5The annular depressionsur-

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

style images are self-portraits centered on individual occurredduringthe Upper Paleolithic.Puberty,menses,

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

the conscious masteryofthematerialconditionsunique iggo]; it is probablyimpossible now to be sure of the

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

logicallyand stylistically.Whetherthe heavilyrestored appearances." In principle,shadows, full-or part-body

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

ficiallyconstructedfictively"autogenous" views-just ing in the perceptionand representationof it by other

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This theorydoes not account forthe facts observed. JAMES ELKINS

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

FIG. i. JoanSemmel, Hand Down, I977, watercolor.Courtesythe artist.

FIG. 2. JoanSemmel, Sun Light,1978. Oil on canvas. Courtesythe artist;photo by JohnKasparian.

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

self-representation more in accord with actual propor-

FIG.4 .Jacopo Pontormo,StudyJorThe Resurrection,

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

figurinefrom Jelisejevitchihas an exaggeratedlower barellesdoes the same. Many ofthe engravedMagdelen-

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

tion. The "Venus" of Willendorf,one of the type figu-

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

FIG. 2. Head ofthelimestoneWillendorf indicatingthespiralofa twinedcoiffure

pregnancy,however,thatis the object's keyfeature,and That diversityis not a resultof autogenousobservation

This content downloaded from 192.215.101.254 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:25:57 PM

FIG. 3. Lower half of the Willendorf