See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271853486

The Well-Dressed Venus: Women’s Wear ca. 27,000 BP

Article  in  Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia · January 2000

CITATIONS READS
9 2,239

3 authors, including:

David C. Hyland
Mercyhurst University
24 PUBLICATIONS   488 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pendejo Cave, New Mexico View project

Eastern European Perishables View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David C. Hyland on 06 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Well Dressed "Venus": Women's Wear ca. 27,000
B .P .

O. Soffer
Department of Anthropology
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois 6l801

J. M. Adovasio
Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute
Mercyhurst College
Erie, Pennsylvania 16546

D. C. Hyland
Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute
Mercyhurst College
Erie, Pennsylvania 16546

Article Prepared for Submission to

Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS
Prospekt Lavrentieva, 17
Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
–2–
 Abstract

Research on Gravettian textiles and basketry inform our understanding of

Upper Paleolithic ideology and shed new insights on one component of stone
age material culture—the "Venus" figurines. Detailed studies of a series of
figurines indicate the presence of at least three different types of dressed female
depictions. These include several types of headwear, at least two types of skirts,
and various body bandeaux. The detail lavished on these constructions is equal
to that allocated to the depiction of secondary sexual characteristics. Using
data from Eurasia, we argue that the portrayed garments were woven of plant
fiber, and that the exquisite detailing bears iconographic witness to the
important role of perishable technologies not only in the secular but also in the
metasecular realms. This iconography also clearly associates perishable
technologies with women as well as with power, prestige, and value.

"The Venus of Willendorf, then within her culture and period, rather than within
ours, was clearly richly and elaborately clothed in inference and meaning. She wore the
fabric of her culture. She was, in fact, a referential library and a multivalent, multipurpose
symbol (Marshack l991:29)."

Introduction

Our ongoing collaborative research with our Czech colleagues on Gravettian

inventories from such well known sites as Dolni Vestonice I and II and Pavlov I has
amply documented the existence of highly diverse and sophisticated textile technologies
that included the production of cordage, the looping of nets, the plaiting of baskets, and
loom weaving of cloth (Adovasio et al. l996, l997, in press; Soffer et al. l998, in press).
The evidence for these perishable inventories comes from 36 textile impressions found on
small-sized fragments of fired and unfired clay recovered from Dolni Vestonice I (Soffer
et al. 1999), one from Dolni Vestonice II (Adovasio et al. l997), and 42 from Pavlov I
(Adovasio et al. 1999).
The observed textiles and cordage specimens were clearly made of plant rather than
animal fiber which were used to produce an extraordinarily wide range of items by a
broad array of methods, as Table 1 indicates, the inventory includes single-ply, multiple-
ply, and braided cordage, knotted netting, plaited wickerware basketry, as well as a wide
variety of non-heddle loom woven textiles, including simple and diagonal twined pieces,
plain woven and twilled objects. Some of these pieces even exhibit intentional structural
decoration (Soffer et al. l998).
Because the Moravian ceramic assemblage is highly fragmentary and the
impressions especially small, we cannot specify with confidence the configuration or
dimensions of items that were produced. We do know that both woven textiles and
plaited baskets are represented. As we have argued elsewhere (Adovasio et al. l996, l997,
1999; Soffer et al. l998, 1999), it is highly likely that the plaited items represents baskets
or mats and that the relatively wide range of textile gauges and weaves suggest mats,
perhaps wall hangings, blankets, and bags, as well as a wide array of apparel forms

–3–
including such items as shawls, shirts, skirts, and sashes. The presence of sequentially
spaced knots on some of the impressions suggests the production of netting while our
identification of seams conjoined by whipping stitches point to the sewing of textiles to
produce more complex structures such as clothing and bags.
The broad variety of these inventories, together with the fineness of many of the
final products, clearly indicate that these are very-well made items that are in no sense
"primary essays in the craft." Rather, when coupled with the observed high level of
standardized

–4–
 Table 1. Perishable Fiber Technology from Upper Paleolithic Moravia

Class/Structural Characteristics Site

Pavlov I Dolni Vestonice I Dolni Vestonice II

Twined Textiles
Open Simple Twining, Z Twist Weft 2 — —
Close Simple Twining, Z Twist Weft 2 1 —
Open Simple Twining, S Twist Weft 3 3 —
Close Diagonal Twining, Z Twist Weft 1 — —
Open Diagonal Twining, Z Twist Weft 4 — —
Close Diagonal Twining, S Twist Weft 2 — —
Open Diagonal Twining, S Twist Weft 3 1 —
Close Simple Twining, S Twist Weft — 1 —
Close Simple Twining, Z and S Twist Wefts — 1 —
Open and Close Simple Twining, Z and S Twist Wefts — 1 —
Close Simple Twining (unknown weft twist) 2 — —
Open Twining, Z Twist Weft (unknown warp engagement) 2 — —
Simple Twining, S Twist Weft (unknown weft spacing) 1 — —
Twining (unknown weft spacing, warp engagement, weft twist) 7 1 1
Plain Woven Textiles
1/1 Balanced Plain Weave — 5 —
Plaited Basketry
2/2 Twill — 4 —
Unknown — 6 —
Cordage
Single, One-Ply, Z Spun 1 — —
Multiple, Two-Ply, S Spun, Z Twist 2 1 —
Multiple, Two-Ply, S Spun (?), Z Twist — 1 —
Multiple, Two-Ply, Z Spun, S Twist 4 — —
Multiple, Two-Ply, Z Spun (?), S Twist — 3 —
Compound, Two-Ply, Z Spun, S Twist 1 — —
Braided, Three-Strand 1 1 —
Z Twist 3 — —
S Twist 8 6 —
Unknown — 1 —
Knotted Netting
Weaver’s Knotted Netting 4 — —

warp and weft processing, they suggest considerable antecedent development both for
these items and the fiber industry in general.
The discussed materials all come from Upper Paleolithic sites assigned to the Pavlov
culture and are firmly dated to between some 29,000 and 24,000 B.P. They represent the
earliest evidence for textile production in the world and reflect a technology heretofore
associated with the much later Neolithic period (Childe l936). Although startling in their
number and sophistication, they are not the only cordage and cordage byproducts
reported from the Paleolithic. Cheynier (l967), for example, published, albeit in an
anecdotal fashion, a textile impression from the Solutrean level at Badegoule in France.
Actual cordage has been reported from somewhat younger sites of Lascaux, France,
Ohalo II, Israel (Nadel et al. 1994), Kosoutsy, Moldova (Adovasio et al. l997, 1999, with
reference), and Mezhirich, Ukraine (Adovasio et al. l997, 1999, with reference). These
data strongly suggest that plant fiber-based textiles and basketry likely existed in a
number of regions outside of Moravia.

–5–
 We have noted elsewhere that sparseness of the evidence for the existence of these
perishable technologies in the late Pleistocene, when compared to the abundance of
evidence for technologies made of stone, ivory, antler, and bone, is not surprising but
rather should be expected because of preservational biases as well as deficient recovery
techniques (Adovasio et al. 1999; Soffer et al. 1999).
Our evidence that people wove and/or plaited plant fiber-based products by at least
Gravettian times, and the concomitant implication that these woven items were combined
by sewing in various patterns to produce more complex products, raises a number of
subsequent issues that can be subsumed under two broad research questions, both of
which are topics of our current research: (1) how were they produced and what was done
with the them, and (2) who made and used them?
Although our research on the tools and implements which may have been used to
produce the textile products and fashion them into more complex structures is in its initial
stages, we note that the appearance of Paleolithic textiles is synchronous with the
appearance of implements associated with sewing, weaving, as well as with net making.
Specifically, as we have noted elsewhere, eyed needles make their first appearance during
the Gravettian period sensu lato, being reported in all parts of Europe, from France (de
Baume l993) to Sungir' in Russia (Bader l998). Although some of these, such as the large
needle from Predmosti (Klima l990:Figure 28), may have been used for net-finishing
rather than manufacture, its subsequent ivory equivalents, ubiquitously found in later
Upper Paleolithic sites, attest to extensive sewing and possibly to embroidery. While
these needles have been traditionally associated with the sewing of garments out of
leather and hide for the production of tailored clothing (Bader l998 with references), we
suggest that the size of many of them is too small for this and, likely, reflects working
with woven textiles and/or accessory stitching or embroidering rather than conjoining
animal hides. Similarly, many Gravettian-age and later inventories contain implements,
previously identified as decorative or "art" objects, which may have been associated with
textile production (e.g., the bone "spear head" from Predmosti [Klima l990:Figure 33]
which may be a net spacer, the sitting anthropomorphs made of mammoth phalanges
from Predmosti [Klima l990:Figures 23–24] and their equivalents from Avdeevo, which
perhaps served as loom weights, the enigmatic "rondelles," including the cut-out ivory
circular objects from Sungir' [Bader l978:Fig. 114], and perforated mammoth bone disks
from Mezhirich [Pidoplichko l976:Figure 74] which may have served as spindle whorls).
We report here on the initial results of our ongoing research on who made and used
at least some of these perishable products below, and use iconographic evidence as well
as the more conjectural evidence from ethnohistory, modern ethnographies, and Upper
Paleolithic funerary wear to do so.

The "Venus" Figurines: Iconographic Evidence for Clothing

Depictions of Humans in the Late Pleistocene

As one of us has noted elsewhere, no other item of Upper Paleolithic material culture
has received as much attention from amateurs and professionals alike, as have depictions
of humans (Soffer 1989; Soffer and Conkey l997). Particular attention in verbal, visual,
and published texts has been paid to Paleolithic depictions of women, commonly termed

–6–
"Venuses" in the literature. The attention paid to these depictions has, by and large, been
directed almost exclusively to certain features common to many of them, namely, the
most emotionally charged primary and secondary sexual characteristics, vulvas, breasts,
stomachs, and buttocks (Soffer 1987, l989; Soffer and Conkey l997). This selective focus
on just some features, which were presumed but never demonstrated to be the seminal
ones, led to the well known myriad of conflicting unitary explanations for the "meaning"
of the "Venus" figurines. These explanations are as numerous as commentators venturing
an opinion, and range from seeing the depictions as "fertility" or "mother goddesses,"
Paleoerotica, gynecological primers, self-portraiture, to suggestions that they were
signifiers of widespread social ties (for a discussion of extant theories see, for example,
Delporte l979; Dobres l992; Duhard l994; Marshack l991; McDermott l996). Other
scholars have raised serious objections to such unitary explanations based on selective
features, ignored contexts, uncontrolled chronologies, and unjustified assumptions (e.g.,
Dobres l992; Soffer 1987, l989; Soffer and Conkey l997).

The Varied "Venus"

While Paleolithic depictions of females—which by now number well over 200

complete or nearly complete examples for the Gravettian period alone—most often do
show unclad bodies, there is a great deal of variability in how the bodies are modeled.
First, as Dobres (l992) points out, there is variability in the media used as well as in
context. More importantly, the variability in the depiction of the female body is not
random, but fairly rigidly patterned regardless of media used or context.
Focusing on over 100 figurines and figurine fragments from Gravettian-age sites in
European Russia, Gvozdover (l989b) rigorously analyzed such features as body posture,
morphological accenting, and surficial decoration, to argue for the existence of at least
four distinct types of the figurines in the assemblages recovered from the related and
coeval Kostenki and Avdeevo sites alone. This first truly archaeological study of this
category of material culture, one which included an examination of a myriad of features,
led her to conclude that:

The massive numbers of figurines at the site and their diversity of types gives
reason to suppose that they embodied a multiplicity of roles of the female image
and that the different types of figurines had different functions in the Paleolithic
pantheon. We believe that each type of figurine had its own symbolic meaning,
conveyed by the pose and accentuation of the female body parts [Gvozdover
l989b:89].

Focusing on the accentuation and angulation of the anatomical features, and

extending her comparisons to female figurines found in Central and Western Europe
during the broadly similar time slice some 26–20,000 years ago, Gvozdover noted
accenting of thighs and hips in Western Europe, of breasts and bellies in Eastern Europe,
and pointed out the intermediate position of those pieces recovered from Central Europe.
Figure 1 shows that even these depictions are internally varied as well.

The Patterning in "Venus-Wear"

–7–
 A cursory look at any volume dealing with Upper Paleolithic female figurines clearly
shows the presence of fully naked as well as partially clad images across all of Eurasia,
from the Atlantic Ocean to Lake Baikal (e.g., Abramova l966; Delporte l979; Gvozdover
l989b). This stands in stark contrast to the few unambiguous depictions of Paleolithic
males (e.g., Brno II, possibly Stadel, possibly the Avdeevo male, fragments of male
bodies from Dolni Vestonice and Pavlov I) or humans of unknown sex who are depicted
either totally naked (in the case of unambiguous males) or have no marking on them.
Gvozdover (l989b) was the first scholar to study the patterning of the decorations on
the "Venus" bodies and to suggest that some of them may represent clothing. Our study
continues this research, focuses on the close reading of these decorations, and
demonstrates that they indeed depict clothing. We do so because we agree with the
observations made by Joyce, in her study of figurines from ancient Mesoamerica, who
writes that:

The selection of features to be incorporated in human images is a means by

which stereotypes of natural or essential human behavior may be promulgated.
In order to approach the relationships between the inaccessible mental
constructs of makers and users of these human images and the public
representations to which we do have access, I assume that no detail is simply
natural or accidental, the selection of attributes being part of a diaologic process
of construction of human identities [Joyce 1993:256].

We focus on these features also because when the female images are depicted thus
decorated or clad, as much attention is paid to the detailing of the items of clothing as to
the depiction of their primary and secondary sexual characteristics, something clearly in
evidence on the well-known "Venus of Willendorf" and a myriad of other figurines and
figurine fragments (see Figure 1). We argue that such attention and detailing offers us a
rare, unambiguous entry into Upper Paleolithic ideologies and helps us to further
decipher the roles that some females played in late Pleistocene societies. This is so
because, as Lesure (l997) notes in his study of figurines in the New World:

If figurines really were a medium for active construction of social identity, then
the stereotypes represented in figurine assemblages can provide important clues
about what was talked about and what was not, in conversations about social
identify....By looking at what was and was not represented, and how social
categories were distinguished within figurine assemblages, it is possible to
develop hypotheses about the subject matter of conversations about social
differences.[Lesure 1997:229].

While those few scholars such as Okladnikov (l941) and Abramova (l960) who
commented on likely Paleolithic clothing argued that they surely were made of such
animal byproducts as furs or hides, we argue here that the garments depicted on the
European "Venus" figurines clearly and unambiguously reflect plant-based textile and
basketry items and in doing so confirm the suggestions of this made by some of our

–8–
predecessors on purely theoretical grounds (Barber l994; Gvozdover l989; Marshack
l991).

"Venus-Wear"

We next turn to a closer look at "Venus-wear" found on the figurines dating to the
Gravettian period, roughly between some 27,000 and 20,000 years ago. We do so
because female images produced during this broad time slice all across Europe are the
most "realistic" or detailed Upper Paleolithic depictions we have. Those dating after this
time period show much greater degrees of stylization which render identification far more
ambiguous (Soffer l997). Since the figurines from Central and Eastern Europe come from
sites assigned by most scholars to a single Pavlov-Willendorf-Kostenki-Avdeevo
(PWKA) cultural entity (Soffer l997 with references) and since, as Gvozdover (l989b)
noted, these images exhibit greater similarity with each other than they do with their
equivalents from Western Europe, we compare the two groups to one another.

Headwear

We begin with the head. Gvozdover (l989b) has already noted that the presence or
absence of this detailing and decoration on the heads of the Eastern European figurines is
highly variable. This variability extends to Central Europe as well. Figure 2 illustrates
just some of this variability, which, because of numerous examples found of each type,
we argue is not random but patterned. Some of the heads from both regions, such as the
Dolni Vestonice I example, lack any realistic detailing at all. The second category
consists of heads with variable realistic detailing of faces and hairdos (e.g., the ivory head
from Dolni Vestonice I or the head of Kostenki-I 83). Of more interest to this discussion
are heads with clear depictions of headwear, all showing hats or caps detailed to varying
degree. These come from Dolni Vestonice, Pavlov, Kostenki, Avdeevo, as well as
Gagarino, and are made in a variety of media from marl, to sandstone, fired clay, and
ivory (Figure 3a–c).
The most well known of these, the head of the Willendorf figurine, offers the clearest
evidence that what we see here is a depiction of headwear and that this headwear
represents a fiber-based woven cap or hat rather than a hairdo. Our close examination of
this specimen shows a spirally or radially hand woven item which may be initiated by a
knotted center in the manner of some varieties of coiled baskets (see Adovasio
1977:Figures 99a–b). The technique represented is a two element structure in which an
apparently flexible, horizontal foundation element or warp is virtually wrapped with stem
stitches. The foundation element is clearly visible between the stitches, some of which
are plain while others are countered (see Emery 1966:Figure 65). Work direction is right
to left and at least seven circuits encircle the head with two extra half circuits over the
nape of the neck. The selvage, as depicted over the forehead, simply has the wrapping
element encircling the final horizontal warp circuit. Several areas on the body of the cap
appear to illustrate splices where new material has been added. Suffice to say, this
complex construction cannot be produced with growing, that is attached, human hair and
therefore most certainly does not represent an Upper Pleistocene hairdo or paleo-coiffure.
Such extreme detailing is redundant across the broad area occupied by groups assigned to

–9–
the PWKA cultural entity, and found in various degrees of realistic detailing and
stylization (Figure 4).
The West European specimens show different patterning. As in Central and Eastern
Europe, some of the female heads are devoid of any detailing, for example, the "Venus
with the Horn" from Laussel or numerous Grimaldi pieces (Deporte l979; White l986).
Others, however, do depict head coverings, such as the "Venus" of Brassempouy (see
Figure 4), Lespugue, the "Negroid" head from Grimaldi, or the "Venus with the Grid-like
Head" from Laussel. Although our study of these objects is still in progress, we suggest
here that these depictions represent hair nets or netted snoods, a hypotheses also
advanced by Moser l997-l998 for the Brassempouy figurine. Although far removed in
time and context, it is interesting to note that similar netted headwear has been identified
on a number of female bodies recovered from prehistoric interments in Danish bogs
(Hald 1980).
Finally, when headwear is depicted on Upper Paleolithic figurines, in most cases it
completely covers the face of the figurine. This, we suggest, points to the semantic
importance of the headwear in Paleolithic ideology, one which apparently held more
valence than individual identity.

Bandeaux

Gvozdover (l989b) has already noted the presence of upper body decorations on a
large number of the Kostenki and Avdeevo figurines in the form of linear wedge-shaped
notching with staggered spacing or checkwork, and suggested that they may be elements
of clothing. The discovery of a number of new figurines and figurine fragments since her
writing, especially at Kostenki I (Praslov l993:Fig. 8; Marshack l991:Plate 4b, Figure 6)
permit us today to expand on this hypothesis. The fine detailing on the Kostenki figurine
reveals patterns on the straps and bandeau reminiscent of open twining with running loop
continuous weft selvages. Additionally, the artisan expended considerable energy to
depict the points at which the straps join the body of the bandeau presumably via sewing.
Whatever the specific weave of the straps, these engravings clearly depict woven fabrics,
not leather or hidewear.
These bandeaux, sometimes shown with straps and at other times abstracted into
strapless banding on top of the figurines' breasts, are present on almost all East European
figurines wearing woven headwear. In the few cases where they are absent, as in the
Willendorf case, they are replaced by hands folded on top of the breasts.
These items of clothing are absent from the Western European figurines and their
absence confirms Gvozdover's (l989b) observations that while the semantic emphasis in
Eastern European figurines was on stomachs and breasts, in Western Europe it was on
hips and thighs.

Belts

Belts constitute the next item of clothing found on the figurines. In some cases they
are attached to string skirts, in others not. Some of them are worn on the waist, others ride
low on the hips. In Eastern Europe, these constructions are always shown worn on the

– 10 –
waist, sometimes just on the back of the figurines and at other times on the front, as well
(e.g., the large marl fragment from Kostenki [see Marshack l991:Plate 4]).
On the other hand, in Central and Western Europe these constructions, when
depicted, are found low on the hip (e.g., the clay figurine fragments from Dolni Vestonice
and Pavlov [see Marshack l991:Plate 4a–b]). Some of them are quite realistic depictions
of fiber-based constructions, others, as on the Venus from Dolni Vestonice I (see Figure
1), consist of highly abstracted horizontal lines girdling the body low on the hip. The
same low on the hip position of the belt can be observed on the Venus of Lespugue, as
well (Figure 5). In this case the belt is attached to a string skirt. Our preliminary
examination of this piece, which shows such fine detailing as initial twist direction of
string (S) and subsequent twist direction of the cordage (Z), as well as the unravelling of
some of the strings at the hem of the skirt, confirms Barber's (l990, l994) observations
that the garment depicted was clearly made of plant-based textile material.

Bracelets and Necklaces

The final items of ubiquitous "Venus-wear" are the bracelets and necklaces found on
a number of Central and East European pieces but absent from Western Europe. These
items however, in contrast to the headwear, bandeaux, and belts are depicted in a far
more schematic fashion which makes it difficult to unambiguously associate them with
fiber-based products. We note here just that when these items are depicted on the
figurines from the PWFA sites, they are always found together with other items of textile
clothing discussed above.

The Regional Patterning in "Venus-Wear"

The above discussion points to clear differences between Western, Central, and
Eastern Europe concerning what the well-dressed "Venus" wore (Figure 6). We
acknowledge that the paucity of female images from Gravettian- or Perigordian-age
Western Europe makes our reconstruction of Western "Venus-wear" very tentative, but
suggest that the data on hand do indicate that it minimally consisted of a netted snood
which was sometimes accompanied by belted string skirt worn low on the hip. This
depiction of string skirts, contra Barber (l994), is only seen on Western European
figurines. Barber's one example from Gagarino reflects only the structure of the ivory
from which the figurine was made and not applied decoration (R. White, personal
communication l999).
In Central and Eastern Europe, on the other hand, it is always the basket hat, often
accompanied by woven bandeaux and belts, as well as by necklaces and bracelets. In
congruence with the differences in the semantic focus between west and east noted
before, and the intermediate position of the Central European figurines between the two,
in Central Europe, as in Western Europe, the belts are low on the hip while further east
they are on the waist.
We have noted that bodywear is found only on Upper Paleolithic female figurines;
the rare male depictions, as well as the undifferentiated anthropomorphs, lack any such
detailing. This patterning clearly associates bodywear with female representations and,
since some female images are depicted without bodywear, with only some of them at

– 11 –
that. Gvozdover (l989a) has also shown that the association of female bodies with
decoration extends into more abstracted decorations found on a wide variety of
implements recovered from Kostenki and Avdeevo (Figure 7). This led her to reliably
identify these implements as synechdoches of the dressed female figurines. These two
sets of data permit us to unambiguously argue, using terminology borrowed from Lesure
(1997), that what was important and redundantly "talked about" some 25,000 years ago
across Europe was woven and plaited clothing and headgear made of plant materials
which was associated with one category of Upper Paleolithic women.

Implications of "Venus-Wear" for

Labor, Social Organization, and Ideology

Day-Wear, Death-Wear, "Venus-Wear"

Having documented Gravettian-age "Venus-wear," we next briefly turn to the issue

of whether these garments were a part of regular day-wear, of ritual wear, or some
combination of the two. Although limitations of space prevent us from engaging in a full
discussion of this topic, it is pertinent to point to some regularities in the archaeological
record that permit us to begin addressing this issue.While we will never be able to
document Upper Paleolithic costumes in full detail, two sources exist for first
approximations: (1) information from burials and (2) information from iconography.
We assume that the iconographic evidence which depicts males unclad and only
some females very partially clad, is clearly not "photographic" evidence that very little
clothing, if any, was worn during the Upper Paleolithic in Europe. This assumption is
warranted by ethnographic evidence which shows that all hunter-gathers inhabiting
northern latitudes, if for no other reason than climate, are clothed. While it is true that the
amount and kind of clothing worn varies depending on season as well as context,
nonetheless the available data validate our assumption that Upper Paleolithic iconography
is not to be taken at face value as a faithful reflection of clothing worn in daily life.
Evidence from Upper Paleolithic burials, although extraordinarily sparse, does
shows that both males and females were at least buried fully clad. For example,
reconstructions of clothes worn by the deceased in the three most complete burials from
Sungir', dated to some 25,000 B.P., uses the placement of voluminous beads as well as
deformations in the bead strands to posit sewn hooded top garments, pants with attached
footwear, capes, and caps or hats (Bader l978; Bader l998). The three individuals buried
here, one an older male, the second an adolescent female, and the third a 7- to 9-year-old
boy, also wore a plethora of bracelets, armlets, necklaces, and rings. Reconstructions of
clothing worn by the deceased buried at the Gravettian sites in Italy also posit the
wearing of hats or caps as well as of other body coverings (Mussi l990). As noted
previously, scholars have assumed that the clothing worn by the Upper Paleolithic
deceased was made of hides or furs (Abramova l960; Okladnikov l941). The lack of
evidence for or against such a hypothesis at the moment prevents us from testing this
assumption.
What we can and do argue, however, is that iconography tells us that at least some of
the clothing worn by some Upper Paleolithic individuals was made of plant-based textiles
and that such clothing, at least iconographically, was associated with one category of

– 12 –
Upper Paleolithic women and, further, that this association was important enough to be
depicted in a variety of implements, from figurines to pins, awls, and decorated animal
phalanges.

Gendering

This association also affords us a clear glimpse at gendering of society in Gravettian

times. Since, as Gero and Conkey (l991) among others, have noted, gendering is a social
construct used to group individuals into socially distinct categories, such evidence from
the Upper Paleolithic permits us to break down what has been too often been treated as a
unified entity—be it "the Gravettians" or "Upper Paleolithic groups", or worse yet, "Ice-
Age Hunters"—and begin considering how individuals were aggregated into socially
constituted groups that far back in time. It also permits us to address issues of agency,
labor, and especially the value of that labor.
In this exercise, we are informed by Costin (l996), who warns that attribution of
gender differences in the past should not be assumed but needs to be demonstrated. She
points out that the commonly used sources for doing so in archaeology are data derived
from ethnographic analogy, from texts, from mortuary evidence, as well as from
figurative representations. However, Costin (l996) and Wobst (l978) before her warn that
the reliance on ethnographic analogy is fraught with dangers of replicating contingent
phenomena, especially the highly context-dependent social ones, as eternal. The nature of
the available Paleolithic data potentially restricts us to just two sources of information,
funerary evidence and iconography, and, because the former is so abysmally sparse, in
reality, just to iconography.
Little attention has been paid to gender issues in the Paleolithic literature and those
on hand are mostly proscriptive theoretical insights rather than empirical studies. One
pertinent exception is Conroy (l993) who studied anthropomorphic depictions and argued
for gendering during the Upper Paleolithic albeit in a different form than known today.
Basing her conclusions on the presence of patterning in female depictions and the
absence of such in male depictions, she argues that women's bodies were already
transformed into cultural constructs while those of males were not. Gvozdover's work
(l989a, 1989b), in turn, demonstrates that the gendered females were further subdivided
on criteria which she argued were not related to age but rather to some other cultural
structuring principles.
Our discussion of "Venus-wear" adds further to these observations by demonstrating
the association of textiles and basketry used as clothing with one category of social
females, those, as is argued below, who were the likely the inventors, producers, and
users of this technology.

Women as Prehistoric Weavers and Plaiters

As we have noted above, the unambiguous assignment of particular technologies to

any particular social grouping of individuals is a difficult endeavor in archaeology. This
is especially so as one moves further back in time and can no longer convincingly use
arguments of historical continuity. In our case, separated as we are by some 25 millennia
from the first documentation about who wove and plaited in prehistoric Europe, the

– 13 –
gendering of textile technologies must rely on parsimony, at best. Nonetheless, we argue
that all of the data commonly used to gender the past available to us, namely iconography
and analogy to the ethnographic record. These sources clearly indicate that it is
Paleolithic women who were most likely the weavers and basket makers in Gravettian
times.
We have already presented iconographic evidence for this. Here we briefly refer to
the ethnographic record which clearly documents not only the close association of
women and plant harvesting and processing (Murdock 1937; Murdock and Provost l973;
Owen l996; Watson and Kennedy l991), but also firmly extends this association to the
use of plant products and their transformation into more complex structures through
weaving and plaiting as well as to process woody materials into finished basketry. This
association, as numerous scholars from diverse disciplines note, is valid for all simpler
societies where textiles and basketry are produced for domestic and communal needs, and
only breaks down when such perishable products enter the sphere of market exchange
(Barber l990, l994; Hald l980; King l991; Schneider and Weiner l989).
This is not to suggest that males play no role in perishable fiber-based technologies.
Indeed, ample data exists to demonstrate that certain categories of items, such as woven
footwear and some kinds of nets, are often made by males. Rather, we suggest that these
male-based productions are the exception not the norm. as ethnographic data documents
for the recent past. Certainly this is definitely the case for textiles and textile production
where male involvement is usually minimal.

Cloth and Baskets: Labor and Value

Our documentation that extensive textile production existed in prehistoric Europe, as

well as the gendering of these technologies, sheds important new light not only on the
labor of a heretofore unrecognized segment of Upper Paleolithic people, women, but also
on the high value of this labor.
The exquisite and labor-intensive detailing employed in the depiction of the woven
garments worn by one group of the "Venuses," which, as we have already noted, received
as much attention, if not more, than did the depiction of sexual characteristics, clearly
shows that weaving and plaiting skills and the final products resulting from such
virtuosity were not only held in high esteem but were significant enough for the people
inhabiting Dolni Vestonice, Pavlov, Willendor, Kostenki, Avdeevo and a myriad of other
Upper Paleolithic sites, to be transformed into transcendent cultural facts carved into
stone, ivory, and bone. Simply put, we suggest that to be a weaver or a basket maker, or
at least to be included in the category of women entitled to wear such garments,
associated the wearer and, by extension, the maker of these objects to marked positions of
status. We further argue that these status positions, at least during Gravettian times, were
restricted to a particular category of social females.
The final issue we raise in this essay is one of value. We have already commented in
this paper and elsewhere on the narrow gauge of many of the weavings found imprinted
on the Moravian ceramic fragments—the finest of which are comparable to not only
Neolithic but even later Bronze and Iron Age products, or, in fact, thin cotton and
linenwear worn today (Adovasio et al. l997, l998, 1999; Soffer et al. 1998, 1999). Such
fine weaving is a very labor intensive activity and its presence in the Upper Paleolithic

– 14 –
archaeological record, therefore, most likely reflects the intensification of female labor.
The iconographic importance afforded to this labor suggests to us that textile products by
this time may have become what Clark (l986) has termed "symbols of excellence."
Specifically, we raise the possibility that these highly perishable products of female
labor may have served as "symbols of achievement" and been a part of prestige
economies. We advance this hypothesis informed by Clark's (l986) discussion of
prehistoric valuables which notes that in simpler societies materials of symbolic value are
often highly perishable, an observation amply confirmed by both the ethnographic and
archaeological records (e.g., Chilkot blankets on the Northwest Coast, atush among the
Ainu, cloth in prehistoric Mesoamerica and Peru, etc.). Thus, here we add yet another
category of products, textiles and basketry, to the ivory and shell precious substances that
Clark (l986) identified as socially valuable materials during the Upper Paleolithic. In
contrast to his ivory and shell valuables, whose makers will likely remain forever
unknown, in the case of Upper Paleolithic textiles and basketry, we are dealing with
gendered technologies that squarely assign the production of valuables to women's labor.

Conclusions

Going from the particular to the more general, we conclude this study with the
following points:
1. A variety of textile, basketry, and netting items were produced in Upper
Paleolithic Europe by at least 27,000 B.P. They were likely used to meet
both household and hunting needs, and, as iconography tells us, also served
as clothing.
2. Iconographic evidence associate the wearing of clothing with a category of
Upper Paleolithic women whose attire included basket hats or caps, netted
snoods, bandeaux, string skirts, and belts.
3. The evidence for the making and wearing of varied and sophisticated woven
products by Gravettian times indicates that the Upper Paleolithic witnessed
more than the "string revolution" and the wearing of seductive string skirts
(contra Barber 1990, 1994). Rather, Paleolithic women made and likely
wore a great variety of cloth including twined wear as well as non-heddle
loom-woven plain weaves.
4. This "Venus-wear" was clearly not day-wear but more likely ritual wear.
These vestments varied in a redundantly patterned manner from east to west.
5. Ethnography, ethnohistory, and Upper Paleolithic iconography squarely
associate the production of textiles and baskets with women and thus reveal
not only female labor but one of the principles used to gender Upper
Paleolithic people.
6. The association of textiles and basketry with just some of the Upper
Paleolithic "Venuses" indicates that a variety of roles were available to
social females in addition to gender based ones, and that these roles were
associated with positions of status.

– 15 –
 7. Both the fineness of some of the weaves and iconographic depictions of this
technology indicate that value was placed on these plant-based products.
8. The iconographic recognition afforded to textiles and basketry suggests that
these products may have been "symbols of excellence," serving as important
signifiers in prestige economies and status demarcations.
9. Finally, Alex Marshack's (1991:29) observations with which we began this
essay, that "the Venus of Willendorf...was clearly richly and elaborately
clothed in inference and meaning" is true not only in the allegorical sense
but quite literally, as well. Yes she and her sisters were indeed richly and
elaborately clad in the woven and plaited finery of their time.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge our intellectual debt to Dr. M. D. Gvozdover whose pioneering

work on the subject will always inspire and enlighten us. We also thank Marcia-Anne
Dobres, Nancy Fisher, Alma Gottlieb, Jiri Svoboda , and Randy White for their insightful
comments and suggestions, and Matti Bunzel and his father for invaluable help with our
research. Dr. Antl Walpurga was instrumental to our study of the "Venus" of Willendorf;
Dr. Jiri Svoboda and Mg. Lenka Jarasova were instrumental to our study of the Moravian
materials; while Dr. Francoise Audouze always provides a congenial research context in
France. The artwork for this article was produced by Steve Holland. Jeff Illingworth
assisted in the production of this paper.
O. Soffer wishes to acknowledge the financial support of her research on Upper
Paleolithic adaptations in Central and Eastern Europe by the International Research and
Exchange Board with funds provided by the U.S. State Department (Title VIII program),
the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, the National Endowment for the Humanities, as
well as by the Research Board of the University of Illinois.The views and statements
expressed above and any errors or biases found within this document are solely the
responsibility of the authors and in no way should be attributed to any of the above-
mentioned funding agencies or organizations.

References Cited
Abramova, Z. A
l960 Elementy odezhdy I ukrashenij na skul'pturnikh izobrazheniakh cheloveka epokhi
verdhnego paleolita v Evrope i Sibiri. Materialy i Issledovania po Arkheoloii 79.
l962 Paleolitichekoe Iskusstvo na Territorii SSSR. Svod Arkheologicheskikh Istochnikov. A
4-3. Moscow, Leningrad.
Adovasio, J. M., O. Soffer, and B. Klima
l996 Paleolithic Fib er Technology: Data from Pavlov I, ca. 26,000 B.P. Antiquity 70:526-
534.
Adovasio, J. M., D. C. Hyland, and O. Soffer
l997 Textiles and Cordage: a Preliminary Assessment. In Pavlov I 1957 Excavations, edited
by J. Svoboda, pp. 403–424. Archeologicky Ustav AV CR. Brno, The Czech Republic.

– 16 –
Adovasio, J. M., D. C. Hyland, B. Klíma, J. Svoboda, and O. Soffer
1999 Textiles, Basketry, and Nets in Upper Paleolithic Moravia: Perishable Technology
in the Pavlov Culture. Archeologicke Rozhledy 1(1), in press.
Bader, N. O. (editor)
l998 Pozdnepaleoliticheskoe Poselenie Sungir'. Nuchnyj Mir, Moscow.
Bader, N. O.
1978 Sungir'. Verkhnepaleoliticheaia stoianka. Nauka, Moscow.
Barber, E.J. W.
1991 Prehistric Textiles. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
1994 Women's Work: The First 20,000 Years. W.W. Norton and Co., New York.
Cheynier, A.
l967 Comment Vivait l'Homme des Cavernes. Ed. Robert Arnoux, Paris.
Childe, V.G.
l936 Man Makes Himself. Mentor Books, New York.
Clark, G.
l986 Symbols of Excellence. Cambridege University Press, Cambridge.
Costin,L.
l996 Exploring the Relationship Between Gender and Craft in Complex Societies:
Methodological and Theoretical Issues of Gender Attribution. In Gender and
Archaeology, edited by R.P. Wright, pp. 111–142. University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia.
Conroy, L.P.
l993 Women in Archaeology. In Women in Archaelogy, edited by H. du Cross and L. Smith,
pp. 153–160. Occasional Papers in Prehistory no. 23. Dept of Prehistory, Research School of
Pacific Studies, The National University, Canberra, Australia.
Delporte, H.
l979 L'Image de la Femme dans l'art préhistorique. Picard, Paris.
Duhard, J. P.
1994 L'identifité physiologique, un élement d' interprétation des figurationes féminines
paléolithiques. Trabajos de prehistoria 51.
Dobres, M. A.
l992 Re-Considering Venus Figurines: A Feminist-Inspired Re-Analysis. In Ancient Images,
Ancient Thought: The Archaeology of Ideology. Proceedings of the l990 International Chacmool
Conference, edited by A. S. Goldsmith, S. Garvie, D. Selin, and J. Smith, pp. 245-262.
University of Calgary, Calgary.
Gero, J.M., and M. Conkey (editors)
l991 Engendering Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford.
Gvozdover, M. D.
l989a Ornamenatal Decoration on Artifacts of the Kostenki Culture. Soviet Anthropology
and Archaeology 27(4):8–31.
1989b The Typology of Female Figurines of the Kostenki Paleolithic Culture. Soviet
Anthropology and Archaeology 27(4):32–94.

– 17 –
Hald, M.
l980 Ancient Danish Textiles From Bogs and Burials. The National Museum of
Denmark, Copenhagen.
Joyce, R. A.
l993 Women's Work: Images of Production and Reproduction in Pre-Hispanic Southern
Central America. Current Anthropology 34:255–274.
Kehoe, A. B.
l990 Points and Lines. In The Powers of Observation: Alternative Views in Archaeology,
edited by S.M. Nelson and A. B. Kehoe, pp. 23–27. Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association No. 2.
Klima, B.
1990 Lovci mamutu z Predmosti. Academia, Praha.
King, M. E.
l991 The Perishable Preserved: Ancient Textiles from the Old World with Comparisons
from the New World. The Review of Archaeology 13(1):2–11.
Lesure, R. G.
1997 Figurines and Social Identities in Early Sedentary Sovieties. In Women in
Prehistory, edited by C. Classen and R. A. Joyce, pp. 227–248. University of
Pennsyvania Press, Philadelphia.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., and J. Allain
1979 Lascaux Inconnu. CNRS, Paris.
Marshack, A.
l991 The Female Image: A "Time-factored" Symbol. A Study in Style and Aspect of Image
Use in the Upper Palaeolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, part 1:17–31.
McDermott, L.
l996 Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines. Current Anthropology
37:227–276.
Moser, F.
l997 Arch éologie expérementale historieque et m éthodologie. Annales des Journ éau
Archéologiques de l'Association des Amis du Pass é du St. C'ere. France.
Murdock, G. P.
l937 Comparative Data on the Division of Labor by Sex. Social Forces 15:551–553.
Murdock, G. P.and C. Provost
1973 Factors in the Division of Labor by Sex: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Ethnology
12:203–226.
Mussi, M.
1990 Continuity and Change in Italy at the Last Glacial Maximum. In The World at 18000
BP, vol. 1. High Latitudes, edited by O. Soffer and C. Gamble, pp.126– 147. Unwin Hyman,
London.
Nadel, D., A. Danin, E. Werker, T. Schick, M. E. Kislev, and K. Stewart
l994 19,000-Year-Old Twisted Fibers from Ohalo II. Current Anthropology 35(4):451–
457.

– 18 –
Okladnikov. A. P.
l941 Paleolitichekaia statuetka is Bureti (raskop l936g.). Materialy i Issledovania po
Arkheoloii vyp. 2.
Owen, L.R.
l996 Der Gebrauch von Pflanzen in Jungpaläolithikum Mitteleuropas. EAZ Ethnogr.-
Archäol. Z. 37:119–146.
Pidoplichko, I. G.
l976 Mezhirichskie zhilishcha iz kostei mamonta. Naukova Dumka, Kiev.
Praslov, N. D.
1993 Eine eue Frauestatuette aus Kalkstein von Kostenki I (Don, Russland).
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 23 Heft 2:165–173.
Schneider, J., and A. Weiner
l989 Introduction. In Cloth and Human Experience, edited by A. B. Weiner and J.
Schneider, pp. 1–15. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Soffer, O.
1987 Upper Paleolithic Connubia, Refugia, and the Archaeological Record from Eastern
Europe. In Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives, edited by O. Soffer, pp.
333–348. Plenum Publishing Co., New York.
l997 The Mutability of Upper Paleolithic Art in Central and Eastern Europe: Patterning
and Significance. In Beyond Art, edited by M. Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratmann, and
N.Jablonski, pp. 239–262. California Academy of Sciences/University of California
Press, San Francisco.
Soffer, O., and M. Conkey
l997 Studying Ancient Visual Culture. In Beyond Art, edited by M. Conkey, O. Soffer,
D. Stratmann, and N.Jablonski, pp. 1–16. California Academy of
Sciences/University of California Press, San Francisco.
Soffer, O., J. M. Adovasio, D. C. Hyland, B. Klima, and J. Svoboda
1998 Perishable Technologies and the Genesis of the Eastern Gravettian. Anthropologie
XXXVI/1-2:43–68.
Soffer, O., J. M. Adovasio, D. C. Hyland, J. S. Illingworth, B. Klima, and J. Svoboda
1999 Perishable Industries from Dolni Vestonice I: New Insights Into the Nature and Origin
of the Gravettian. Proceedings of the Masaryk University Conference. Brno, Czech
Republic, in press.
Sterdeur-Yedid, D.
l979 Les Aiguilles á Chas au Paleolithique. XII Supplement á Gallia Prehistoire. CNRS,
Paris.
Watson, P.J., and M. C. Kennedy
1991 The Development of Horticulture in the Eastern Woodlands of North America:
Women's Role. In Engendering Archaeology, edited by J. M. Gero and M. W.
Conkey, pp. 255–275. Blackwell, Oxford.
White, R.
1986 Dark Caves, Bright Visions. The American Museum of Natual History, New York.

– 19 –
Wobst, H.M.
1978 The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers or the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record
in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43:303–309.
Yalon, M.
l997 A History of the Breast. Knopf, New York.

– 20 –
 Figure Captions

Figure 1. The "Venus" of Dolni Vestonice I (left) and the "Venus" of Willendorf (right).

Figure 2. A selection of the different types of female heads from Dolni Vestonice I and
Pavlov I.

Figure 3. Close-ups of the head of the "Venus" of Willendorf. a, anterior; b, posterior;

and c, superior views.

Figure 4. The "Venus" of Brassempouy.

Figure 5. Posterior view of the "Venus" of Lespugue.

Figure 6. Map of the distribution of the different types of clad "Venus" figurines.

Figure 7. The location of decoration on the ivory female figurines and other objects from
the Kostenki and Avdeevo sites (after Gvozdover l989b, Figure 8).

– 21 –

View publication stats