Self-Representation in Upper 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 [email protected].

.

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-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research. All rightsreserved OOII-3204/96/3702-0003$2.50

The world's oldest survivingworks of art fashioned afterthe human image appear in the archaeological strataof the in Europe,shortly after Self-Representation Homo sapiens sapiens emergedonto the centerstage of bioculturalevolution. Questions about theirmean- in Upper Paleolithic ing and significancebegan with Piette's (i895) and Reinach's (i898) earlydescriptions of findsfrom the rock sheltersand caves of southernFrance and north- Female Figurines1 ern Italy. Since these pioneeringefforts, several hun- dred additional images have been identifiedfrom the European Upper Paleolithic,most notablyfrom mod- by LeRoy McDermott ern France,Italy, Germany, , the Czech Repub- lic, Slovakia, and the Commonwealthof Independent States. The rich possibilitiesraised by a centuryof comparativeand interpretivestudy have yet to gener- ate a consensus about why our ancestorsfirst began to This studyexplores the logicalpossibility that the firstimages of the humanfigure were made fromthe pointof view of self create representationalimages of the human body or ratherthan other and concludesthat Upper Paleolithic "" what functionsthey initially served (Conkey I983). figurinesrepresent ordinary women's views oftheir own bod- This study challenges the assumptionthat images of ies. Usingphotographic simulations of what a modernfemale the human figurewere firstcreated fromthe point of sees ofherself, it demonstratesthat the anatomicalomissions view of otherhuman beings and arguesinstead that the and proportionaldistortions found in Pavlovian,Kostenkian, and Gravettianfemale figurines occur naturally in autogenous,or art of representingthe human body originatedwith vi- self-generated,information. Thus the size, shape,and articula- sual informationderived primarilyfrom the physical tion ofbody parts in earlyfigurines appear to be determinedby point of view of "self." Afterrestudying the originals theirrelationship to the eyes and the relativeeffects of foreshort- fromthis neglectedpoint of view,2I conclude that the ening,distance, and occlusionrather than by symbolicdistor- tion.Previous theories of function are summarizedto providean oldest images of the human body literallyembody ego- interpretivecontext, and contemporaryclaims of stylistichetero- centricor autogenous(self-generated) visual information geneityand frequentmale representationsare examinedand obtained from a self-viewingperspective (McDermott foundunsubstantiated by a restudyof the originals.As self- I 98 5). Furthermore,since all the earliest,best-preserved, portraitsof women at differentstages of life, these early figurines and most refinedpieces appear to be analog representa- embodiedobstetrical and gynecologicalinformation and probably signifiedan advancein women'sself-conscious control over the tions3of women lookingdown on theirchanging biolog- materialconditions of their reproductive lives. ical selves, I conclude that the firsttradition of human image makingprobably emerged as an adaptiveresponse LE ROY MC DERMOTT is AssociateProfessor of Art at Central to the unique physical concerns of women and that, MissouriState University (Warrensburg, Mo. 64093,U.S.A.). whateverelse these representationsmay have symbol- Bornin I943, he was educatedat OklahomaState University ized to the society which createdthem, their existence (B.A.,I965) and at the Universityof Kansas (M.A., I973; Ph.D., signifiedan advance in women's self-conscious I985). His researchinterests lie in the psychologyof visual per- control ceptionand arthistory. He has published"The Structureof Artis- over the materialconditions of theirreproductive lives. tic Evolution:An InterdisciplinaryPerspective," in Problemsof Beforerepresentational art or mirrors,there were only Method: Conditions of a (Proceedings of the 24th two sources of visual informationabout human appear- InternationalCongress of theHistory of Art, Bologna, Italy, Sep- temberio-i8, I979) (Milan: L'ElectaEditrice, i982), and (with H. C. McCoid),"Towards Decolonizing Gender: Female Vision KansasAnthropology Museum. I thankElizabeth in the European Paleolithic" Banks,Jill Cook, Upper (AmericanAnthropologist, in CatherineHodge McCoid,Bradley Lenz, Anta Montet-White, and The presentpaper was accepted27 iv press). 95, and thefinal ver- Olga Sofferfor their critical and conceptualcontributions to this sion reached ii viii the Editor'soffice 95. project.Cathy Clark, Suzanne Olmstead,and Lisa Schmidthave developedphotographic inventories in supportof the project. I also gratefullyacknowledge the cooperationof the expectantmothers who made it possiblefor me to explorethis hypothesis. i. The thesisof this paperwas firstpresented at the 6th Annual 2. This studyreexamined, either in theoriginal or as casts(or both), Meetingof the Midwest Art History Society, held at theUniversity mostWestern and CentralEuropean images dated to thePavlovian of Kansas,April 5-7, I979, and subsequentlyto the i2th Inter- and .Study of Kostenkianpieces was limitedto four nationalCongress of Anthropologicaland EthnologicalSciences castsfrom Gagarino, two fromAvdeevo, and threefrom Kostenki, (ICAES),meeting at Zagreb,Yugoslavia, July 24-3I, I988. The re- courtesyof the MoravianMuseum in Brno,Czech Republic. searchhas been assistedby grantsfrom Eastern Montana College 3. An "analog"image is notto be confusedwith the use of"analogi- and CentralMissouri State University, and the followinginstitu- cal" methodologiesin archaeologicalinterpretation. Analogy re- tionshave made casts and/ororiginals available: Mus6e des Anti- quiresonly that there be sufficientsimilarity to justify comparison. quit6sNationales at Saint Germain-en-Laye;Mus6e de l'Homme, In contrast,a modernphotograph or otheranalog image is a physi- Paris; Museo Preistoricoed EtnograficoLuigi Pigoriniin Rome; cal transformor recordof the energy(or light)which it captures. MittelrheinischesLandesmuseum, Mainz; PrahistorischeSamm- Thus,in theory,a continuousphysical variable links any realistic lungen,Ulm; Sammlungendes Institutsfur Vor- und Fruhge- imageand theoriginal visual information which it represents,even schichteder UniversitatTuibingen; Prahistorische Staatssamm- ifin practicethat link can rarelybe reconstructed.Ifthe firstim- lung in Munich; NaturhistorischesMuseum at ; Mo- ages ofthe human body were created from self-generated informa- ravsk6Muizeum in Brno,Czech Republic,and the Universityof tion,they necessarily have the structurewe observe.

227

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 228 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume37, Number2, AprilI996

ance-either one's own body or that of anotherhuman The FirstHuman Images being.4At the beginningof arthistory there would have been no a priorireason to choose one source over the The earliest prehistoricrepresentations, the so-called other.Admittedly, there is the practiceof more recent Venus figurines,constitute a recognizablestylistic class millennia to influenceour thinking,but what otherba- and are among the most widelyknown of all Paleolithic sis do we have for assuming that at the beginningof objects (figs.i and 2). As a group they have frequently image making a prehistoricartist would "naturally" been describedin the professionaland popularliterature have chosen to representanother human being rather (Abramova i967a, b; Bahn and Vertut I988; Burkitt than self?To determinewhat choice of visual informa- I934; ConkeyI987; DelporteI993a, b; Dobres igg2a, tion actuallyprevailed at the beginningof representation 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 informationfrom direct visual self-inspection I976; PassemardI938; Pfeifferi982; Praslov I985, I986; has changed since the Upper Paleolithic, and thus the Putnam I988; Saccasyn-Della Santa I947; Ucko and Ro- image projectedonto the retinaof a woman livingtoday senfeldI967; White i986). Scholars and 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 looking down 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-generatedinformation is lentlyendowed or embarrassinglyobese (Regnaulti9i2). thus comparedwith the attributesof the earliesthuman Upon analysis, however, the actual formsof the figu- figuressimilarly seen, a stronglynaturalistic and lifelike rines are revealed to be so much at variance with ana- correspondenceis in factroutinely encountered. In the tomical exactitude that many researchershave seen firstrepresentations of the human body,the "disembod- them as reflectingarbitrary convention and abstract ied" view of objective anatomical proportionswhich schematizationrather than observationalreality (Con- governsmodern scientific thinking appears to have been keyi983:2I5; Dobresigg2b:255; Leroi-Gourhani968a: less imprtantthan the optically"correct" relationships 207). In fact,it is the specificway in which realityis of a more immediate subjectiveperspective.5 integratedwith presumablyconceptual departuresfrom anatomical objectivitythat best defines this style of image. 4. The oldestmirrors appear in the Neolithic(Mellaart I967:208) in the formof polishedobsidian discs foundat ?atal Huyuk(ca. These mostly palm-sized statuettesappear to depict 8,500-7,700 B.P.). Aqueous reflectionswere availableduring the nude obese women with faceless and usually down- UpperPaleolithic, but thehorizontal surface of a naturalpool dis- turnedheads, thin arms which commonlyend or disap- tortsthe proportions of full-length human figures in a mannercom- pear under the breasts (but occasionally cross over pletelyat variancewith those encountered in thefirst tradition of them),an abnormallythin upper torso carryingvolumi- image making. 5. Althoughthis hypothesis relies on visualevidence for its demon- nous and pendulous breasts,exaggeratedly large or ele- stration,tactile and somato-sensoryinformation would certainly vated buttocks often splayed laterally but sometimes have contributedto any act of self-representation.Although it is distendedrearward, a prominent,presumably pregnant virtuallyimpossible to demonstratesuch a role experimentally, or adipose abdomen with a large elliptical navel, and tactileknowledge could easily have operatedto fashionfeatures what oftenappear to be oddly bent, unnaturallyshort whichcould not be seenfrom a self-viewingperspective. Represen- tationsof hair,for example, are oftenencountered among these taperinglegs which terminatein eithera roundedpoint images,and whilethe long tresses seen in verticallyengraved lines or disproportionatelysmall feet.Although readily recog- at Lespuguecan descendinto the visual field, close-fitting coiffures nizable, these anatomical details do not add up to an such as the checkerboardor quadrillagepattern wom by the Gri- accurate image of the human figure. maldi "Negroidhead," the "Brassempouylady," and a smallrelief fromLaussel could not have been seen by their owners. This would I contendthat it is the fixedangle of self-regardwhich also have been the case withthe tightcircular ringlets apparently accounts forboth the odd "realism of parts considered favoredfarther east, as seen at Willendorf,Pavlov, Kostenki, Gaga- independentlyone fromanother" observed by Saccasyn- rino,and Avdeevo(Delporte I993a:figs. 7, I9, 44, 95, i28, I55C, Della Santa (I947:96) and Leroi-Gourhan'sconclusion I68, I74, i83). Similarly,the tactile knowledge women can be ex- that the figuresappear "centeredon the torso,breasts, pected to have of theirhair may also have been the sourcefor representationsof the vulva,which is likewisenormally outside thighs and abdomen," with the rest "attentuated" or the self-viewingvisual field.The absenceof the vulva in mostof "dwindlingaway" above and below (i968a:2o7). The lat- these images is strikinglyconsistent with the physicallimits of ter researcherchristened the collective result of these visual self-inspection,whereas the fact that most female figurines distinctivedistortions, anatomical omissions, and gen- with a vulva come fromthe singlesite of Grimaldiis logically eral of the consistentwith regional variations in theway in whichautogenous disproportion parts "lozenge composition" information,including that originating in touch,was employedin (i968a:go; i968b). The structuralnature of these distor- fashioningimages of self. tionshas oftenbeen overlookedby scholarswho see gen-

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1229

a b c d

e f g h FIG. i. Anatomicaldistortions encountered in Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettianfigurines (redrawn afterLeroi-Gourhan 1968a:9o), showing the relationships Leroi-Gourhan called the 'lozenge composition":an abdominalcircle with a diameterdefined by thegreatest width of the image (a, b), theincorrect proportions seenin theupper and lowerbody (c,d), the unnatural elevation of the vertical midpoint and greatestwidth of thefemale body (a-h), and therepresentation of whatshould be halfof the body (pubes to ground)as being closerto one-thirdthe total length (e, f,g). a, Lespugue;b, Grimaldi"lozenge"; c, Kostenkino. 3; d, Gagarino no. I; e, Willendorfno. I; f,Laussel "womanwith the horn"; g, Dolnl Vestoniceno. I; h, Gagarinono. 3.

der or variations of feminine morphologyand repro- below the level of the 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 coincideswith its greatesthorizontal or lateral andde St.-Pereuse1976; Rice I98I; SofferI987). In fact, width. In the typical "lozenge composition,"however, the consistentdepartures from nature seen in these early while the vertical midpoint and greatest horizontal images involvebasic structuralalterations in the normal width continue to occur together,their intersection is vertical and horizontalproportions of the human body unnaturallyelevated to the level ofthe navel. This effect (Pales and de St.-PereuseI976:68-73). resultsfrom a generalatrophy of the lowerbody wherein In human beings,half the body's lengthtypically lies the distance fromthe crotchto the groundis typically

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 230 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April 1996

a b c d

e f g h FIG. 2. PKG-stylefigurines, illustrating the centraltendency of 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,regardless of race,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 criticalimportance of understanding this 6. The factthat the lowerextremities of many early figurines are generalized of missingbecause of breaksraises legitimatequestions about the atrophy the upperand lower body (I993a: frequencyof this structuraldistortion. When specimens preserve 244, 275), he perpetuatesan unfortunateassumption by theirextremities, however, such distortionsare almostinvariably seeking the explanationin "a psychologicalimperative seen,and it is reasonableto assume,in the absenceof any signifi- which correspondsto a conceptionof women in the life cant contraryevidence, that these proportionsshould be used in and behaviorof prehistoric man" (I993 C: Io). Whyspecu- the reconstructionof specimens which have survivedonly as frag- ments.Among those which preserve their original length, only the late about psychologicalmechanisms before experimen- "punchinello"from Grimaldi even approachesa correctanatomi- tallyexamining the materialevidence ofhuman vision? cal height-widthratio, whereas the largeLaussel relief (and proba- We should not simply ascribe the "violation of certain blythe relief figures from Abri Pataud and La Moutheas well),the Monpazierand Lespuguefigurines from France, the Savignano and Chiozza pieces fromItaly, the Willendorffrom Austria, and Kos- fromcrotch to groundas closerto one-thirdthe total than one-half tenkino. 3, Gagarinonos. 4 and 83-I, and Avdeevono. 76, 77-I, (Pales and de St.-PereuseI976:71). The same structuraldistortion and 77-2 fromRussia (DelporteI993a:figs. I9, 43, 49, S, 6i, 9i, is perhapseven more consistentlyrepresented by the unnatural 97, 99, i28, i68, I73, I83-85, and i92) all representthe distance elevationof the verticalmidpoint in theseimages.

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 23I

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 responsiblefor the "violations" ob- fromthose of the later (Delporte I993a: served. I contend that their originlies in what all hu- 24I; I993b:243). These firstrepresentations of the hu- mans and especially expectantmothers can and cannot man figureare centeredin the Gravettianassemblages see when theylook down at theirown bodies. (UpperPerigordian V3 or Noaillian) ofFrance and related The distortionsin these firstimages are producedby easternvariants of that techno-complex,especially the threestructural regularities inherent in the body as di- Pavlovian in the Czech Republic and the Kostenkianin rectlyself-inspected but not necessarilyobserved from Russia (29,000-23,000 B.P.). For convenienceI shall label the point of view of otherhuman beings. First,because this styleof image the Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettian it begins with the same fixedpoint of view, everyone's (hereafter PKG) (Delporte I993a:2I3; I993b:225; Otte experienceof self-generatedvisual informationhas the and Keeley I990:579; SofferI987:344). Images of this same structure,including a distinctivecanon of propor- style are most often small-scale statuettes carved in tions, despite variationsexpressive of individualphysi- stone,bone, and ivory,with a fewearly Pavlovian exam- ognomy,age, and gender.Second, because ofthe oblique ples modeled in a formof firedloess (Vandiveret al. angle of self-regard,self-generated information is always I989, Sofferet al. I993). They use the same materials stronglyforeshortened, and bodyparts close to the eyes and techniques and distinctivesculptural rendering of projecta proportionatelylarger image on the retinathan mass seen in animal sculpturesfrom earlier those fartheraway. Both an invariantorder of 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 objective relationshipsbetween regions Lopata, Piredmosti,Pavlov i (Delporte I993b:247), and ofthe bodycannot be directlyapprehended, among them 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 otherwiseprominent anatomical figuresfrom four 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-dimensional nature of visually apprehendone's own body as a whole, any im- later Magdalenian engravedand painted human figures age of self as an independentthree-dimensional entity and animals commonlysaid to mark the "birth"of rep- must be the mental combinationor integrationof the resentationalart (Delporte I 993b:243). multiple viewpoints possible in direct visual self- Magdalenian human representationsare concentrated inspection.7Multiple viewpoints,having more or less primarilybetween i 5,ooo and i I,000 B.P. (Magdalenian finiteif overlappingboundaries, are an inherentrequire- 3 through6) and are stylisticallydifferent from this 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 sketchyengraved and painted"anthropomorphs, " which composition." Moreover, the discontinuous nature of on the basis ofan occasional erectpenis and tuftof facial the visual informationthus producedabout the human hair are considered males, and equally schematic but body and the sequence or orderin which it is experi- much more consistentlyrendered and farmore numer- enced may be relevant to the content and fabrication ous "profile"or "buttock" images, now almost univer- processes seen in othercategories of female representa- sally seen as portrayingfemales (Bosinski I99I; 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 females are renderedstands in marked contrastwith the relativerarity and varietyof Chronologicaland GeographicalDistribution the cursorilyengraved and painted Magdalenian male "anthropomorphs."This quantitative and qualitative In spite of many difficultiesin dating,especially among differentialin renderingmales duringthe Magdalenian findsfrom France and 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 logicalreason to assume thatour firstportrayal of the humanbody followed the unifiedor objectiveperspective of images are separated by as much as io,ooo years, and modernhuman anatomy.The currentconvention for the full- theirreliance upon the second and thirddimensions re- lengthhuman body assumes that we see otherhumans as if they spectively shows that they follow differentdevelop- were standingat an elevationand/or distance sufficient for our mental trajectories(Conkey I985:30I). The experience line of sightto bisectthe body'svertical axis. Such an idealized of art historydemonstrates that the socioeconomic and image impliesa habit of lookingat othersfrom sufficient social distanceto ignoreproximal foreshortening effects and relatesulti- cultural context supportingsuch formal vocabularies matelyto how we objectivelyknow the humanbody to be con- could be as diverseas those separatingthe abstracttwo- structedrather than how we routinelyspe it. dimensionalforms of ChristianRomanesque and Byzan-

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 232 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

tine art fromthe naturalisticthird dimension of pagan TABLE I Greek and Roman . Pavlovian, Kostenkian,and GravettianSites with Radiocarbon dates for the important eastern Gra- StylisticallyRelated Female Figurines vettian or Pavlovian site of Dolni Vestonice in Mora- via indicatethat archaic formsof PKG-styleimages first Site Location Source emergeas earlyas 30,000 to 28,000 B.P. (DelporteI993a: 2I2-I3), with most 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) B.P. Czech Republic(p. I44), 23,000 to 2i,600 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) the Bri- Dolni Vestonice Czech Republic Absolon (I949) two interstadials-the Tursac in the west and Moravany Czech Republic Zotz (i968) ansk in easternEurope, from around 27,000 to 23,000 Pavlov Czech Republic Delporte (I993a) B.P. (DelporteI993a:I84, 2I3; I993b:244; SofferI985). Petrkovice Czech Republic Delporte (I993a) While such precisionmay be unwarranted,absolute dat- Willendorf Austria Delporte (I993a) ing clearlyindicates "a certainchronological homogene- Mainz-Linsenberg Germany Passemard (I938), 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-longcultural corridor con- 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 from Italy (Radmilli I969); Brassempouy France Passemard (I938), none have been found in Spain. The contrastbetween Piette(i895) La Mouthe France Dickson (i99o) the wide geographicaldistribution of the 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 distinctnatures of 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) the "contexts" or "differentialreproduction" of the vari- Pechialet France Delporte (1993a) ous "systemsof visual 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). Tursac (Abri France Delporte (i960) To date approximately40 intact or mostly intact Facteur) figuresin the PKG stylehave been published,and about twice that number of figuresare known as fragments (Bissonand Bolduc I994, DelporteI993a, Gamblei982, Pales and de St.-PereuseI976, Praslov I985). The frag- activity,whereas only individual pieces were found at mentaryand poorlypreserved nature of much of the evi- Moravany in the Czech Republic, Savignano and Chi- dence and the factthat some sites yieldedlarge numbers ozza in Italy, and Abri Pataud, Le Mouthe, Lespugue, of findswhereas othersare known only fromindividual Monpazier, Sireuil, and Tursac in France. Quantitative pieces make it difficultto describethe geographicaldis- approaches become even more problematicif one also tributionof these images quantitatively.For example, attempts to count possible variant and unfinished more than 70 pieces have been identifiedfrom four east- "sketches." A saferindicator is the numberof sites 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- mentary works, mostly heads, from Kostenki alone. ages at 24 Upper Paleolithic sites (see table i). Brassempouyand Grimaldi show similar concentrated Within the stylisticparadigm defined by these sites, regionalvariations do exist (Delporte I993a, b). Further- 8. While undoubtedlyrelated to PKG-styleimages, Siberian figu- more,where an adequate sample is available, as in Rus- rinesfrom Buret' and Mal'ta near Lake Baikal, east of the Ural sia, intra-and even intersitedistinctions can be demon- Mountains,are not includedin this studybecause theyare geo- strated(Gvozdover I989b). There are subtle variations styl- graphicallyremoved (5,ooo km fromnearest Russian sites), details of arms and heads, and isticallydifferent in formand content,and later than European in height/widthratios, examples (Abramova i967b; Delporte I993a; Graziosi I960; orientationof major body regions which may or may Leroi-GourhanI968a; McDermottI985). not prove to be of semiological significance.Claims of

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 233

"empiricalvariability" (Dobres i992b:249) or trueheter- rennialappeal-although sometimeswith peculiar con- ogeneity among these earliest works (Hadingham sequences. For example, Piette (I902:775) saw enlarged I979:220-225; Nelson I993:5I; Pales andde St.-Pereuse fattybuttocks in a piece fromGrimaldi and institution- I976:93; SofferI987:336) can be defended,however, alized a long-lastingfascination with the unusual condi- only by ignoringa clear central tendencydefining the tion of steatopygia.Although having little in common style as a whole. General qualities and particulartraits beyondampleness, the posteriorsof subsequent discov- characterizeall categoriesof culturalartifacts, and it is eries at Willendorfand Laussel in i908, Lespugue in not necessarily a methodological mistake to speak i922, and Savignano in I924 fueledthe lamentableten- "about both the diversityand homogeneityof prehis- dency to see all prehistoricpeculiarities of the buttocks toric material culture in the same breath" (Dobres as steatopygous. igg2a:8). While accepting that "the unique featuresof Earlythis century,ethnographic observations encour- 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 fertilitymagic (Reinach figurines,"like any otherarchaeological object, contain I903). Originallyfocused on 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"with animal and human featuresand subset of superficial . . . attributes" associated with the exuberantlyfemale PKG-style figurineswere thought nude female body (SofferI987:336). Real female bodies alike rituallyengaged in ensuringthe success of imme- do not tapertop and bottom,carry their buttocks above 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 symbolicinterest in fertilityand long been recognizedas relatedto industriesfrom Cen- fecundityhas been very influential(Abramova i967b, tralEurope (see Gvozdover i989b:32; Praslov i985:i82), BurkittI934, Pales and de St.-PereuseI976, Ucko and it is quite probable that theirhuman figurinesare also RosenfeldI967). related.For Delporte the common lithic characteristics Passemard's I938 demonstrationthat true steatopygia underlyingregional variations "imply, if not homogene- is in fact rarely representedhad the perverse conse- ity among European Gravettiangroups, at least a mea- quence of only strengtheningthis idea that the enor- sure of similarityworth recognizing" (I993b:244). As in mous hips (and breasts)of femalefigures had 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 Freudian ideas (Neumann I955:98), a host of stenki, Gagarino, Avdeevo, and Khotylevo and those analogical possibilitiesarose, ranging from the aesthetic fromwestern Gravettian and Central European Pavlov- ideal of obese women (Schuchhardti926) and ethologi- ian sites reveal common selectiveprocesses. There is no cal signals of "biological readiness" (Guthrie I984:59) theoreticalimpediment to studyingthe contextof such to prosaic yearningsfor erotic stimulation and other choices in the formsof theirrepresentational 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 tionsfrom an otherwiseanatomically accurate represen- 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 "stylisticdeformation of the naturalbody reveals a "clearlyno othergroup would have had such an interest common tendencythroughout Europe" (I989b:79). in the female form" (Collins and Onians I978:I2-I4). For anotherit was equally self-evidentthat this "early erotica" bore "a great resemblance to the images por- Previous Interpretations trayedin men's toilet stalls" and must be "an art made by men about male preoccupations"not unlike thatseen Much that has been written on the significanceand today in men's magazines (Guthrie I984:59-7I). The functionof Upper Paleolithic female images involves emphasis in female images on sexual traitsrather than some analogical or symbolichypothesis as to why they personal featuressuch as the face was seen as a logical departfrom an otherwiseobjective realism. One endur- consequence of another perceived origin for animal ing approachresolves the conflictby identifyingthis re- art-as huntingtrophies. As trophiesdepicting acts of currentincongruity with anomalous or unusual catego- rape, kidnap, or murder,PKG-style images would have ries of visual information.Whether scholars have found epitomized masculine status symbols by representing the Negroid race in Europe (Piette I902:773), extremes "brave acts among males" to promotegroup solidarity ofthe femalelife cycle (Rice I98I), enlargedor hypertro- (Eaton I978; I979:7). phic breasts (Harding I976), or obesityand the physio- Feministscholars have soundlycritiqued the method- logical consequences of maternity(Duhard I993a, b), ological limitationsof the "decidedlyandrocentric" par- the possibilityof observational exactness has exertedpe- adigm (Dobres igg2b:245) and "hierarchized and gen-

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 234 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

deredsubject-object relationship" (Mack I99-2: 235, .237) been seen as evidencefor the religioususe of earlierUp- operatingin these and other male-centeredanalogical per Paleolithicfemale figures. Admittedly, there are sug- approaches.I can only echo Dobres's conclusionthat the 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), butthere has beenno conclusivedem- them onto female images created 30,000 years in the onstrationof formal linkage (McDermottI987). Gimbu- past "is withoutmerit" (igg2b:248). tas arguespersuasively for such a link(I98I, i982), but Finally,many othersfind the 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 usefulreview of such equally plausible sacred and/orprofane functions if the argumentsis found in Duhard's Realisme de l'image apparentlydistorted attributes of PKG-styleimages7are feminine paleolithique (I993b: I 57-59), and although indeed arbitrarysymbols for which the code has not his claims forthe accurate representationof physiologi- been preserved. cal historiesin all Upper Paleolithic female images ex- By limitingitself to physical processes known to be ceed the available evidence, particularlyfor Magdalen- the same today as duringthe Upper Paleolithic,my hy- ian pieces, his conclusion that theirattributes reflect a pothesisminimizes the projectionof a modernsubject's "deliberatechoice" and not the constraintsof materials ideologyinto prehistory(Mack I992:239). Unlike an is persuasive. analogy, which only assumes that "the same causal Toward midcenturythe enthusiasmfor ethnographic mechanismsthat operatedin Upper PaleolithicEurope" hunting-and-fertility-magicinterpretations gave way to also operatetoday (Layton I992:2I3), it can be experi- a concern for "context" in Paleolithic art. Controlled mentallytested. How and what a contemporarywoman excavation at rich Russian sites found PKG-stylefigu- can or cannot physicallysee of her own body without rines in the domestic contextof hut floors,storage pits, the assistance of technologycan be objectivelydeter- and niches (Hancar I939-40) and led Efimenko(cited in mined. For women, palpable proofor refutationcould Abramova I967b:8i) to see female ancestor images 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 inferringintent from the archaeologicalcontext of these and later Russian discoveriesare discussed by Gvozdover(i989b:70-78), while discussionof the "loca- tional tendencies" preservedin western sites can be StylisticVariability and Choices in Visual foundin Delporte (I993a:259-6i) and Hahn (I993:236- Information 37). In spiteof the meagerevidence preserved from many earlyexcavations, context, writ large to include all dia- An unstatedassumption of most previousefforts at un- chronic and synchronicvariation, continues to domi- derstandingPKG-style images 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 exertedtheir influence (Gamble i982, involvedin reproductiveor eroticactivities are accentu- I993, I986). Althoughthe microscopicevidence which ated or enlargedto symbolize societal values, whereas Alexander Marshack thoughtrevealed lunar calendars the individualizingand self-actualizingcomponents of has beenchallenged (d'Errico I989, Whitei982), his hy- face, hands, and feet are neglectedbecause they are in- pothesis that Upper Paleolithic art representedseasonal significantto the message (Giedion i962:434; Gvoz- and other environmentalperiodicities as part of a sto- doverI 989b:5 I; NeumannI 953). The appealof such an 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 reflect choices in the information probableoperation in Upper Paleolithiccultures of "sto- theyrepresent. First, as previouslystressed, some parts ried equations . . . [about] the primaryprocesses and of the femalebody do indeed appear enlargedand 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-style figuresmight have been motivated by im- sustained the impressive constancy of the PKG style provementsin "obstetricpractices" or "neonatal care" throughtime and space? Why are the lower extremities (i983:222), Marshackdeserves credit for being among of both Frenchand Russian pieces too shortto be ana- the firstto recognizethat female images could represent tomicallycorrect? Why are the buttocksof female statu- processes of primaryconcern to the physical lives of ettes fromwidely separatedstrata elevated (fig.3)? women. Secondly, a strikingselectivity in genderexists. An The widespreadworship of a mothergoddess attested examinationof the originalsreveals thatonly one of the by the oldest writtenrecords and the prevalence of fe- six figureslong claimed as males in the literaturefor male imagery during the interveningNeolithic have Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettianor earlier levels can

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines| 235

a b c

d e f FIG. 3. PKG-stylefigurines in profile,showing common 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.After examining these pieces, I join Lu- also reportsa male fromAvdeevo and Praslov(I985:I86) quet(I934:43I) in concludingthat, whatever the artist's one fromKostenki. If confirmed,these will be the first originalintention, the pubic nodes of these fragmentary of this genderever foundin easternEurope (Abramova pieces lack definitionand do not certainlydepict the i967a, b).9 If men were involvedin creatinghuman im- penis.1oIf unfinished,such undifferentiatedprotuber- ages at this time, why are virtuallyno males repre- ances could easily have been destinedto become either sented? the generalized mons veneris commonly seen in early In i902, Piette decided that two fragmentarylower female statuettesor the developedvulva foundin a few bodies fromBrassempouy, originally published in I895, specimens(McDermott I985:I 99-202). On thebasis of were males. Kuhn (I936:226), Passemard(I938:20), what we know about the developmentof later,better- Saccasyn-DellaSanta (I947:I62, 199), Leroi-Gourhandocumented art-historical period styles,these Brassem- (i968a:I23), Pales and de St.-Pereuse(I976:pl. I76), and Duhard (I 993b: 3 6, 39) have continuedto identifymales io. Delportedid not see thesenodes as male membersin theorigi- nal I979 editionof his importantstudy of prehistoricfemale im- ages,but, following Duhard's (I993b) reexamination,he now finds 9. Accordingto Praslov(I985:i86), "these are only suppositions the two pieces "convincingmasculine figures" (Delporte I993a: since theydo not have genitalorgans." 26-27; I993b:247).

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 236 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April 1996

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; femalefigurines with which theyshare many attributes. Marshack I988), the fact remains that only one male Lalanne's i9i2 identificationof a profilemale archer image can be convincinglyidentified in the Pavlovian- in bas-relieffrom Laussel has likewise been generally Kostenkian-Gravettianflowering of European Upper Pa- acceptedin theliterature (Jelinek I975 :4 I2; KuhnI936: leolithicartistic activity. This standsin markedcontrast 232; Lalanne and Bouyssonie I94I-46:I38; Leroi- to the unequivocal sexual realismand extensivestylistic Gourhani968a:I23; Luquet I930:I7; Saccasyn-Della membershipwhich characterizefemale figures.The re- Santa I947:I64), althoughthe imagepossesses no pri- finementof form and balance and the consummatemas- maryor secondarysexual characteristics.Pales labeled it teryof materialsobserved in better-preservedPKG-style sexually indeterminatein I976 (pl. I77-55), and Duhard figurinesspeak to a long traditionof femaleimage mak- subsequentlyinterpreted it as a juvenile female (I993b: ing and an early investmentof physical and aesthetic 73). Compositionallythis one-of-a-kindwork has more energiesnever seen in Upper Paleolithic male images. in common with variantPKG-style statuettes from Tur- The scarcityof male images is inconsistentwith con- sac and Sireuilthought to representprofile views of ado- temporaryclaims of the heterogeneityof early human lescent females than with any known male representa- images. The argumentof Leon Pales that therewas far tion(Delporte I960). more diversityof style and genderthan has been recog- In I97I Hahn describeda "male" statuettethat had nized is particularlywell known. Accordingto Pales, been reconstructedfrom badly deteriorated fragments of the undue attentiongiven the blatant sexuality of the mammothtusk originallyexcavated in I939. This very so-called Venus figurineshas caused us to see similar poorlypreserved ivory figurine from Hohlenstein-Stadel, attributeseverywhere. On the basis of line drawingsil- whose over 2oo fragmentshave gone throughthree con- lustrating480 "human" images assembled forhis study figurations(I969, I983, and I988), is said to resemble of engravedfigures from the French site of La Marche the male foundat Brno(Delporte 1993a:i 52; Hahn I97I: (Pales and de St.-Pereuse I976), he concludes that nu- 24I), but this is a spurioussimilarity. Arriving indepen- merousUpper Paleolithic representationsof males were dentlyat our conclusions,I in I985 and Schmidin I988 also made, with most images actuallybeing sexually in- found it far more reasonable that the piece originally determinate.However, it is only when worksin all me- representeda female. The penis identifiedby Hahn dia fromall regions of Europe are lumped with those (I97I:237) is buta serendipitoussilhouette produced by fromthe much later Magdalenian that this conclusion differentialweathering of the concentricivory lamellae can be defended.Not only does Pales ignorebasic tem- in the tusk; it is not intentionallycarved (McDermott poral and formal distinctions and treat the immense I985:2i8). 20,ooo-year span of the EuropeanUpper Paleolithic as a In I939 Absolon identifiedas male a fragmentof fired cultural whole but he counts items without regardfor loess excavated at Dolni V6stonice.A reexaminationof stylisticattributes or 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 quantitativesignificance with stylisticallyre- needed to see a lower torso with a diffusetruncated lated and intactworks of rareworkmanship and beauty. mound located between the stumpsof what mightonce By collapsingall images ever thoughtto representa hu- have been legs. The "penis," forexample, is nearlyequal man figureinto a single pool, he creates a nonhomoge- in diameterto one of the legs, and the essentiallyshape- neous sample incapable of supportinghis conclusions less piece actuallyresembles the frontor rearlegs of one (McDermotti 9 9i). What mightbe defendedas a statisti- of the numerousbroken animal statuettesfound at the cal descriptionof the Upper Paleolithic in its entirety site. Of the approximately3,700 modeled "ceramic" actually obscures the dominant representationalform fragmentsfrom Dolni 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,for example, Pales classi- among the remainderthere are 77 nearlywhole and 630 fies 242 as "realistic" and only 238 as "humanoid." brokenanimals comparedwith only I4 fragmentsof hu- Thus, almost half look so little like human beings that man figures(Vandiver et 'al. I989). What Absolon saw accuracy requiresthey be given a separate designation. as a penis is more likelythe stumpof eitheran animal's Of the 242 images classified by Pales as realistic, 25 head or tail and its frontor rearlegs than a one-of-a-kind (io%) are identifiedas males and 97 (40%) as females; representationof a human male (0. Soffer,personal the remainingi2o (50%), lacking primaryor secondary communication,August 8, I988). featuresof gendersuch as genitalia,breasts, or beards, The muscular fragmentof an ivoryfigure from Brno, 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 classificationsystem which accepts does, however,create a realisticimpression of masculin- all suggestiveforms as evidence of common content(re- ity.The head, torso,and leftarm of the Brnoman is all alistic humans) without regardfor cultural context or that survives of the only statuettefound in an Upper mannerand style of representation? Paleolithic burial. A unique find with no known sty- Of the 25 males identifiedby Pales, 2i are two- listic antecedentor descendent,it can certainlybe ac- dimensionalworks dated to the Magdalenian,thousands cepted as Pavlovian withoutformal conflict. of yearsafter the spreadof PKG-styleimages. The male-

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines 2e37

ness of threeof the remainingfour (Brassempouy, Hoh- lithic,and when males do emergeduring the 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-Cantabrianregion of 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 challengepreexisting biases, Pales There is an obvious relationshipto be seen betweenthe did call needed attentionto the way in which genderis stylisticattributes of Upper Paleolithic representations actually representedamong PKG-style images. How- of the female body in general and PKG-styleimages in ever,much needless confusionabout stylisticheteroge- particularand the structuralregularities of form and neity or homogeneityin the Upper Paleolithic would contentcontained in those minimal viewpointsneeded have been avoided if students of genderin prehistoric by a woman to see her own body.Personal experimenta- images had applied principleslearned from later, better- tion will demonstratethat, without external technologi- understoodstyles of representationalart. Prehistorians cal assistance,a reasonablyinclusive inventoryrequires have too oftenfailed to recognizethat formis more in- at least five or six primaryvistas: (i) head and face, (2) dicative of a common cultural traditionthan content. superioranterior or upperfrontal surface of body,(3) in- Ignoringthis basic tenet of stylisticclassification has ferioranterior or lower frontalsurface of body,(4) infe- led to an undue acceptance of one-of-a-kind"male" im- riorlateral or lower side surfaceof body,and (5) inferior ages to the point of creatinga categoryof masculine posteriorsurface of body, including (a) under-the-arm representationwhere none exists.As Delporte observes, views and (b) an over-the-shoulderview. the wish to findmales participatingin the firsttradition i. Faceless heads. Although the seat of visual self- of human image making obscures the 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 logicallyexplains why-although thereare re- Only slightlyless detrimentalto our understanding gionalvariations in shape, size, and positionin the heads of PKG-stylefemale images is the pernicious habit of of PKG-stylepieces-virtually all are renderedwithout comparingartifacts with 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 described as "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 quickly and portioned"(Delporte I993b:248)? Only carefulcompari- crudelyfor one limited time and use" (MarshackiggIa:287), son of with the anatomical it whereasothers appear to have been leftunfinished at someearlier image reality "re-presents" stageof a processthat would have eventuatedin a PKG-stylefigu- can bring order out of the subjective interpretations rine.In male images,other than the mostgeneral commonalities which lace the literatureon this subject. Furthermore, oftechnique and subjectmatter (such as prognathoussnouts), there an artist'ssuccess in capturingthe appearanceof exter- has beenlittle success in identifyingany recurrent formal or stylis- nal visual informationcan and should be objectively tic attributes.Nor is anyinternal progress toward representational accuracyobserved in thisgender of image (Leroi-Gourhan i968a). evaluated. Hastily executed one-of-a-kindworks are not I2. Facial featuresof any kindare rarelyencountered. The extent statisticallyor culturally equivalent with highly fin- to which the faces of figurinesfrom Kostenki (no. 83-I) and Av- ished pieces makingup a clear stylistictradition of rep- deevo (no 77-I) are developedappears to be unique in the record resentationaleffort. To assume otherwiseis to ignore (Delporte I993:fig. I73, I84; Praslovi985:figs. 2, 5), althoughparal- the mechanismsof culturethat trainartists and sustain lels can be drawnbetween them and even moreshadowy and in- completeforms seen at Monpazier(Clottes and Cerou I 970:fig. I) the chronologicaland geographicalspread of a style. and on the Grimaldi"undescribed figurine" (Delporte I993a:fig. Indeed, a classification system sensitive to the ba- 94). The positionof the eyes is perhapsindicated in the "black sics of art-historicalstyle dramaticallyalters Pales's Venus" no. i ofDolni Vestonice(Marshack iggia:fig. I7I) but at counts of male and sexually indeterminatePKG-style most suggestsonly an "eerie and ghostly'spirit' face" (P. 377). The PeabodyMuseum "Janus"figurine from Grimaldi has rough images. Males are, as we have seen, virtuallyabsent indentationsfor eyes and mouth, and even more shadowy possibili- fromthe record.Further, if only a few of the so-called tiesexist for Savignano and figurineno. 2 fromGagarino (Delporte sketches, which range from admittedly conjectural I993a:fig. 90, 97, i90). The absence of facialfeatures on the six roughed-out"blanks" to pieces lacking only the final recentlyrediscovered statuettes from Jullien's early excavations at definitionof breastsand abdomen (see fig.4), are recog- Grimaldiis consistentwith prior observations (Bisson and Bolduc I994). Given the prominentposition of facialinformation in our nized on the basis of numerousshared formal attributes affectiveexperience of otherhuman beings,its generalabsence as unfinishedfemale images (ratherthan being consid- fromPKG-style images supports the autogenous hypothesis. How- ered sexually indeterminate),the dominance of female ever,certain self-viewed facial information is alwaysavailable, and over male representationsduring the openingmillennia this may explainwhy the best-executedUpper Paleolithic faces are foundon disembodiedheads from of the Upper Paleolithic becomes overwhelming.An or- Grimaldi,Brassempouy, and Dolni Vestonice(Delporte I993a:figs. 7, 95, I43) and not on full ganized traditionof representingthe male figurehas yet figures.While none of these have a fullinventory of facial features, to be identifiedfor the early and middle Upper Paleo- all do have large,prominent noses, and the readercan verifythat

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 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 unfinishedfigurines suggestive of a time-factoredfabrication process beginningwith the head. a, Abri Cellier; b, Vogelherd;c, Pavlov; d, Gagarino sketch; e, Brassempouy"girl"; f, shortfigure from Gagarino ivoryrod containingtwo unfinishedfigurines. visual knowledgemay also explain why the most com- With the head held upright,the body is absent from monly encounteredform of 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 formfound on the consciousness alike reside in the head, reinforcesthe best-preservedFrench, Austrian, and Russian figurines identificationof numerous European Upper Paleolithic but it predominatesamong fragments,strongly indicat- pieces, sometimes consisting of little more than a ing that most missing heads should be similarlyrecon- roundedbutton or caplike "head" at one end of a rod or structed (Abramova I967b:pls. 9 and io). Its stylistic tusk,as eitherabbreviated or incompletehuman figures. dominance is furthersupported by its presence on sev- Three lines of evidence supportthis possibility.First, eral variant figurinesmade frommammoth phalanges similar undefinedbutton-like heads at the ends of sug- or metacarpals,thought to representsquatting pregnant gestivelyshaped rods of Aurignacianprovenance, such women, fromPiredmosti and Avdeevo (JelinekI975:figs. 642, 643). I3. The autogenoushypothesis thus provides a parsimoniousex- planationwhy headless bodies and facelessheads are so frequently the nose looms largein one's visual fieldwhen the face is the seenin UpperPaleolithic art and suggests a generalrule: The differ- focusof attentionbut disappearsfrom consciousness when visual entialencounter of body parts in theself-viewing visual field deter- attentionshifts to the body. minesthe frequencyof theirappearance in images.

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 .239

as those fromAbri Cellier and Vogelherd,could be ear- pieces, if theyare unfinished,predict that this 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 decorativemotifs shared with finished ments necessary for complete visual self-inspection figurines,Gvozdover has convincinglyidentified Kos- with attention focused last on the central parts of a tenkian rods with stylisticallysimilar roundedends as woman's body involved in reproduction.Pregnancy and abstracted or schematic female images (i989a). The self-inspectionboth involve sequential stages whose thirdis the frequentidentification of what are seen as typicaltime-factored progress might well be revealedin preliminarysketches that could easily be figurinesinter- the processes preservedin unfinishedpieces. During ruptedor abandoned at some stage priorto completion pregnancy,some parts of the body change while others (McDermottI985:270). In fact, Praslov (I985:i82) remainthe same, and the partswhich undergothe most claims that sufficientunfinished examples have been change appear to be defined last in the fabrication foundon the Russian Plain to allow him to follow the process. differentstages in making eastern PKG-stylefigurines 2. Superioranterior or upperfrontal surface of body. from"initial cuttingto finalpolish." The existenceof a Standing erect with the head bowed presents to a common fabricationprocess which beginswith the ma- woman's eye a stronglyforeshortened view of the 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 bending of the body necessaryfor direct vi- visual field. Creation fromthis perspectiveprovides a sual self-knowledge. parsimonious explanation for the voluminousness and Sometimes these sketches are little more than tusks distinctivependulous elongationroutinely observed in with a possible head differentiatedat 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-stylefigurines assume the natural proportionsof I967b:pl. 27), or ivory rods with a button or caplike the averagemodern woman of childbearingage. For ex- "head" at one end as seen in earlierAurignacian exam- ample, the dimensions of the breasts of the oft- ples (see fig.4). The lattercategory includes the "doll" illustratedVenus of Willendorfare comparableto those sketches from Brassempouy,one of the sketches re- of a 26-year-oldmother-to-be with a 34C bust (see fig. portedfrom Gagarino (Delporte I993a:figs. I3, I87), and 5). When foreshortenedfrom above, even the apparent a similar piece fromPavlov (Marshack iggia:fig. i63). hypertrophicdimensions of the and Although long associated with finishedfemale statu- the best-preservedfigurine from Dolni 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 thickness of the these and othersketches were made rapidlyfor a specific upperbody cannot be experiencedby self-viewingis log- one-timeuse (iggia:287) and never intendedto be fin- ically consistentwith the abnormalthinness seen in the ished. Although logical, such a conclusion implies a torsos of many PKG-stylefigurines (see fig.3). knowledgeof motivationwhich we in factdo not have. When viewed fromabove, most other apparentana- It would be best to restrictquestions of procedureto tomical distortionsor omissions of the upper body un- thosepieces thatclearly reflect a commonprocess. What dergo similar realistic transformations.For example, we know is that some pieces definitelyrepresent unfin- PKG-stylefigurines commonly have what seems to be ished female figurinesat differentstages of completion only an ill-proportioned,sharply tapering fragment of and that ivory rods or tusks with rounded buttons 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, shortenedfront surface of her upper arm,with the fore- forexample, clearlyshows differentstages of carvingin armsnormally occluded below the breasts.Another con- each figure(Tarassov I97I), with the shorterfigure hav- vention explained by the foreshorteningand occluding inglegs and abdomenmore differentiated than the taller. effectof a self-viewingperspective is the unnaturally A comparable "in-process quality" is clearly seen in large,elliptical navel located too close to the pubic trian- Kostenkistatuette no. 5 and Khotylevono. 3 in the east and the Brassempouy "girl" in the west (Delporte I4. Claims ofnatural shape and size forbreasts (Clottes and C6rou I993a:figs. II, I70, 203). Similarroughed-out develop- I970:437; Pales and de St.-PereuseI976:96-97) cannotwithstand criticalexamination. Most make erroneouscomparisons between ment is seen in fragmentsof the lower body preserved artifactsrather than between image and livinghuman beings (Mc- at Brassempouyand Gagarino (Delporte I993a:figs. 6, Dermotti985:233-58). When comparedwith modernanatomy, I96). thebreasts of some figurines are as largeas orlarger than the entire It is possible that fabricationof a human figurinein- torso,which is beyondthe rangeof physiologicalpossibility, let volved firstdifferentiating a "head" froma "body" of alone the expectednorms of a prehistoricpopulation. Pales's revi- sionistargument that breasts in UpperPaleolithic images do not materialand then followingan essentiallylogical time- differsignificantly from the range that can be seentoday, especially factoredsequence which mightremain unfinished. Both amongmultiparous mothers, is credibleonly from a self-viewing the autogenous hypothesisand the evidence of these angle.

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 240 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

FIG. 5. Autogenous visual informationof the-upperbody. Top, photographicsimulation of what a six-months-pregnant26-year-old Caucasian female of average weightsees when looking down while standingerect; bottom,same view of Willendorfno. I (cast).

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female FigurinesI 24I

bottom,sam vie offgrn rm epg (at

FIG. 6. Oblique aerial views of frontbody surfaces.Top, 30o-year-oldCaucasqian female, fou7r months- pregrnant;

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 2421 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

gle in several figurines.'5The annular depressionsur- roundingthe navel proper,seen obliquely fromabove, projects just this size ellipse, and when pregnant a woman cannot see the abdomen below the navel. Also, the dual role of hands and arms as both agentof fabricationand model could relate to their variability 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 rationalorigin for even the unusual thin "fili- form"or threadlikearms of the well-knownpieces from Lespugue and Willendorf.'6 3. Inferioranterior or lower frontalsurface of body. A correctlyforeshortened representation of the lower body seen fromabove would shrinkor narrowtoward the feet as if its true heighthad been compressed.Only the au- togenous hypothesis renders sensible the compressed stature(or atrophy)of the lower body,including the di- minutive feet,preserved in some PKG-stylefigurines. The lower body and feet are optically correctfor the point of view employedin theirrepresentation.'7 It is also a factthat fora pregnantwoman, inspection of the upper "half" of the body terminatesat the navel with the curvingoutline ofthe distendingabdomen. She must bend at the waist to bringher lower "half" into v view. Thus the gravidfemale's directvisual experience of her full-lengthbody involves combiningtwo discrete views which meet at the abdomen near the level of the navel-which also, contraryto anatomical fact,appears to be the widest partof the body.When she looks down over the interveningmass of her growingabdomen, she FIG. 7. Leroi-Gourhan's"lozenge composition,"a does not see that the vertical midpoint and greatest product of the mental combinationnecessary to physical width of her body really intersectat the level create a full-lengthimage fromthe separate views of the hip joint. The apparent misrepresentationof required by female self-inspectionof frontbody heightand width routinelyseen in PKG-styleimages is surfaces. actually a sensible symmetricalcombination of these otherwisediscontinuous views. The necessityof uniting parentlyincorrect proportions on which it is based (see the two views fromabove and below the intervening fig.7). mass of the woman's pregnantabdomen apparently pro- 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 expandingfrom the lower torso towardthe I5. These large,elongated navels are foundon the relieffigure withthe hornfrom Laussel, Italian figurines from Savignano and buttocks beforecontracting as the eye encountersthe Chiozza, the famousWillendorf statuette, the Dolni Vestonice more distantrectus femoris and vastus lateralismuscles "blackVenus" no. i, the Moravanystatuette, and Kostenkistatu- of the thighand the bulginggastrocnemius of the calf. ettes I, 3, and 83-2 (AbramovaI967a:pl. IS; DelporteI993a:fig. The feetmay or may not be visible,often being occluded 43, 97, 99, I28, I3I, i6i, and I74). by the interveningbody, particularly the more rearward I6. The well-preservedstatuettes from Willendorf and Lespugue are the only intact examples of this arm treatment(Delporte the angle of regard.The apparent cantileveringof the I993a:fig. i9, I28), althoughsimilar atrophied arms might be pre- rectus femorisin frontof the lower gastrocnemiusis servedin brokenpieces fromLake Trasimeno(Graziosi ig6o:fig. identical with the "bent-knee"posture seen in numer- 8) and Brassempouy(Delporte I993a:fig. io). Graziosisaw similar ous otherwiseerect Upper Paleolithic images of the hu- "puny arms foldedover the breasts"of the Savignanofigurine (i960:52), but I challengehis interpretationof the original. man figure(see fig.8). This oblique outline of the lower I 7. The best-preservedexample of unrealistically small feet is stat- side not only coincides with the arrangementof muscles uetteno. 3 fromKostenki i. Althoughthe anteriorportions of the seen in this regionfor PKG-style images, but its content feetof the Willendorfstatuette are broken,they appear originally is identical with the informationcontained in the so- to have been ofcomparable diminutive size. The Monpazierfigure has similarminuscule albeit damaged feet, and thesame seemsto called buttocks or profileimage which dominates the be the case forAvdeevo nos. 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

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1243

FIG. 8. Autogenous visual informationof lower 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 autogenous form of the bodyis congruentwith theirconspicuous absence and content of these two approaches which renders in this later categoryof image. comprehensibletwo categoriesof supposed anatomical 5. Inferiorposterior surface of body. There are only distortionspreviously recognized in 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 posteriorfatty enlargement of the buttocksproperly the line of sightunder the arm,thus bringingthe caudal called steatopygiaand the farmore commonlyencoun-

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 244 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

a b

C ~~~~~~~d

FIG. 9. Tracingsof photographs of PKG-stylefigurines seen fromabove, showinglateral displacement ofposterior masses (a, c, d) and rearwardprojection (b). From Grimaldi,a, "yellow steatite statuette"; b, "punchinello"; c, "lozenge"; fromBrassempouy, d, "dagger handle." tered lateral deposits of adipose tissue resemblingfat the complete occlusion of the buttocksbelow the tail- thighsor ridingjodhpurs known as steatotrochanteriaor bone, and this is the key to understandingan even more steatomeria(Duhard I988, I99I; RegnaultI924). enigmaticdistortion found farther west-the represen- s a. Under-the-armviews. Dependingon the effortex- tation of supposedly "upside down" buttocks (Luquet pended in rotatingand looking underthe arm,the view I934:434-35). In the well-knownivory figurine from will eitherbe limited to a lateral segmentof the lower Lespugue,the figurinein yellow steatitefrom Grimaldi, back above the sacral triangle(tailbone) or, with greater the shatteredivory torso fromBrassempouy known as exertion,may also include a foreshortenedoutline of the "daggerhandle," and a fragmentof firedclay found the upper buttockbelow the tailbone. With or without by Klima at Pavlov, a bar or bridgeof materialpresum- maximumrotation, the view ofthis regionwill be domi- ably representingthe tailbone lies below the apparent nated by the lateral bulge of the glutei medii,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 buttocks emergesin- Thus, judgingby the positionof the sacral triangle,what stead as the furrowof the lower spine separatingthe have oftenbeen seen as unnaturallylarge, elevated but- lateral glutei medii. The actual gluteal groove and the tocks are in factrealistic renderings of the gluteimedii, buttocks proper,which objectively extend below the properlypositioned above 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 Intergroupvariation in the rotationaleffort expended maximumpossible rotationof the head and eyes to look in self-inspectioncould thus explain not only the gen- underthe arm. Figurineswith what appearto be "upside eral lateral displacement of mass that has been called down" buttocks actually correctlyrepresent what can steatotrochanteriaor steatomeriabut the observedcon- be seen in an under-the-armview. As with pieces with- tinuumof regional variation in this "condition"as well. out faces and with forearmswhich disappearunderneath Many Russian pieces appear to have unnaturallylong the breasts,the generalprinciple seems to be that what loins, flanks,or glutei medii above the sacral triangle cannot be seen tends not to be represented. and atrophiedor disproportionatelyshort buttocksbe- An intermediateregional variation in self-inspection low (Leroi-GourhanI968a:520), as would be consistent routines of the posterioris perhaps preservedin the with considerablerotational effort. Less effortproduces arbitraryhorizontal notch located immediatelyabove

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 245

the bottom edge of the atrophied"buttocks" of the Ve- sons between the original artifacts(or their casts) and nus of Willendorf.This blunt geometricfeature, which one's own anatomy is the ideal procedure.(Caution is makes no anatomical sense fromany pointof view other urged to avoid injury to joints and muscles unaccus- than the self-viewing,'8is opticallytransformed into a tomed to such maneuvers.)I predictthat, when others highly naturalistic foreshortenedimage of the lower have viewed the better-preservedand "finished"PKG- back above a properlypositioned tailbone carriedabove style pieces fromthe point of view that only women an oblique sliver of foreshortenedbuttocks (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 sometimesapproaches sci- cult and presumablyless frequentroute of dorsal self- entific exactitude. This isomorphic relationshipwith inspectioninvolves sharplyrotating the head, thrusting natureis best seen when the masses of both prehistoric the chin over the shoulderand peeringobliquely down- images and contemporarywomen are viewed fromcom- ward out of the cornerof the eye. It is this view which parablycircumscribed "oblique" angles of "self"-regard. accounts forthe steatopygousform of fatty enlargement. I perceivethe strongestrealism when the pieces are held In an over-the-shoulderview the dual masses of the glu- relativelyclose to the eyes so thatthe autoscopicprojec- tei maximi projectrearward from the bodyinto the field tion of one's own body is wholly or in part replaced as in steatopygia,complete with the deep gluteal cleav- by that representedby the figurine.This "masking" or age separatingthe buttocks,seen in works fromSavig- "replacement" possibilityaffords a point of departure nano and Grimaldi ("the punchinello") and Monpazier forfuture studies. (see fig. 9, b). Again what had been puzzling extremes From a self-viewingperspective, PKG-style figurines of human anatomy become surprisinglyrealistic when represent normally proportionedwomen of average consideredfrom the probablepoint ofview employedby weightat differentstages in theirbiological lives. They theircreators (see fig.i i). Thus, PKG-styleimages show constitutea formof self-portraitexecuted millennia be- the most consistent realism or organic verisimilitude fore the invention of mirrors.What has been seen as when conscientiouslyexamined from a retinalangle and evidenceof obesityor adiposityis actuallythe foreshort- distancethat mimics those requiredfor inspecting one's ening effectof self-inspection(McDermott I988). 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 orderlyconventions for represent- (e.g., Duhard I993a, b; Rice I98I) but requiresviewers ing the foreshortenedconfiguration of subjectiveoptical to rotate theirpoint of view approximatelygo'. When reality. properlyviewed, stylisticor structuralregularities such as the generalizedatrophy of the upper and 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-viewingare preservedin the different striking,but furtherexamination of this hithertoig- stages of unfinishedpieces as well as in the boundaries nored categoryof informationis required to establish definingother categories of partial human figuresen- its ultimate validityand 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-stylefemale figurines that of selfor sites and regions,in contrast,would be the logical conse- other?Here at least is a hypothesiswhich can be tested, quence not onlyof women's ages and reproductivehisto- althoughcertain evidence should be treatedcautiously. ries but of the probablemorphological diversity distin- Camera lenses, forexample, have propertiesnot found guishingindividuals and groups,the phase of pregnancy in the human eye (and vice versa), and directcompari- represented,and variations in self-inspectionroutines (e.g.,the over-the-shoulderview) withinthe autogenous paradigm. i 8. The rediscoveryof six statuettesoriginally excavated by Jullien If the attributesof PKG-styleimages realisticallycor- fromthe Grimaldicaves (Bissonand Bolduc I994) highlightsre- respondwith the point of view employedby their cre- gionalvariations in thisview. In threeof these pieces (specimens C, D, and F), as well as the piece in yellowsteatite in the Mus6e ators, then the apparentexaggeration and distortionof des Antiquit6sNationales at Saint-Germain-en-Layesince I896, certain body parts and the reductionand omission of the verticalgroove or depressionapparently separating the 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 approximateposition of the anus (Bissonand Bolduc genic feminineviewpoint requires these exact attributes I994:462, 463, 465; DelporteI993a:IoI). Such pitscould symbol- ize theanus in a generalway, although they certainly do notrepre- stands in dramatic contrast to previous speculations sentit in anynaturalistic fashion. When viewed from above, how- about theirmotivation. Evidence indicativeof one-of-a- ever,this depression in theGrimaldi yellow steatite piece visually kind accidentsand arbitrarysymbol and ritualwill have metamorphosesinto the recessedarea formedby the lowerspine to be soughtelsewhere than in the attributesof the im- and thedimple of the coccygealor sacraltriangle, properly located above foreshortenedbuttocks. This imageis verysimilar to that ages themselves.At the same time,the representational createdby the more geometric notch in theback of the Willendorf accuracy of art in later historicalperiods does not pre- statuette(see fig.io). clude its having had a symbolicfunction. Yet, if PKG-

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 246 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

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

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines 247

FIG. I I. Photographic simulation of modern woman's view of buttocks as seen over the shoulder.

FIG. i i. Photographicsimulation of modern woman's vi'ewof buttocksas seen over the shoulder. style images are self-portraitscentered on individual occurredduring the 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"alterations in bodily function The realism of formand content seen in PKG-style and configuration(Marshack iggia:282). Accurate ob- images when properlyviewed suggestsa materialisthy- stetricaland gynecologicalknowledge benefits women pothesisfor why our species firstbegan to make images today and can be presumedto have done so duringthe of the human figureand what functionthey originally 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 reliable methodfor calculating the time stored and preservedinformation about biological pro- of delivery,would have had the practicalimprovement cesses unique to the lives of women. No answer to the of women's lives to advertiseits spread. That women absence of male sculpturesfrom the PKG horizoncould gained increased control over their reproductivedesti- be more parsimoniousthan that women firstdeveloped nies duringthe Upper Paleolithicis suggestedby the de- human image making as accurate records of physical cline in representationsof pregnancy(Duhard I993a:88) changes they alone experienced and 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,ensure that feminine self-inspection actually Europe occurredbecause they played a didactic role in

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 2481 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

the conscious masteryof the materialconditions unique iggo]; it is probablyimpossible now to be sure of the to women's reproductivelives. authenticityof the "Venus" of the Abri Pataud; and A feminine motivation and functionfor PKG-style therehave always been misgivingsabout the Grimaldi images raises the logical possibilitythat the dispersalor figurines-Bisson and Bolduc [I994] are admirablyopen diffusionmechanisms responsiblefor their spread like- and objective about the latter'suncertainties, and con- wise reflectthe perspectiveof women. Furthermore,if vincingevidence is still awaited.)However, while focus- PKG-styleimages of the human figurewere createdand ing on the Central and Eastern specimens,McDermott disseminatedby women, it is also possible that PKG- inexplicablyomits the astonishing"Dancing Venus of styleand Aurignaciansculptures of animals, which em- Galgenberg"(Neugebauer-Maresch i988), 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 figurinefrom Avdeevo, thus raises the possibilitythat women led in representa- tentativelymentioned in the paper,is extremelydoubt- tional image making duringthe earlyand middle Upper ful: its gender has been interpreted,somewhat tenu- Paleolithic and should probablybe creditedwith intro- ously, from its musculature and posture rather than ducing this importantcultural activity. fromsexual characteristics(Gvozdover I995:23). Finally,the autogenoushypothesis raises questions of Turningto the theory:if I understandMcDermott cor- 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-portraitsby female carvers,many of McDermott n.d.). If self was the armatureupon which thempregnant, and all apparentlyignoring the bodies of the firstimage of humanitywas constructed,when and those around them and relyingexclusively-for thou- how did images based on the appearance of otherssup- sands ofyears-on the distortedviews theycould obtain plant those based on self?What changesin culturallife by peeringdown at theirown. There are numerousprob- were responsiblefor this fundamentalchange in repre- lems with this notion. First,it is as sexist to claim that sentational focus? Also, since the importantrole once all these images were made by women as it is to assume played by autogenous informationin human cultural that they were all produced by 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- traditionalandrocentric view that these figurineswere awareness and the internalizationof self-imagemay all made by men for men, as erotica or suchlike; but need revision.19 McDermott's question-"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 for both 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 Palaeolithic images on the basis of theircontent-to as- sume that they were all women instead of all men The thesis of this paper struck me 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-provenanced and dated figu- therefore,for McDermott to proceed fromthere to the rinesfrom Central and EasternEurope (Abramova i995), possibility that Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettianand thoughhis occasional referencesto figurinesfrom west- Aurignaciansculptures of animals were also all created ernEurope ignorethe graveproblems which beset some by women. This is, of course, theoreticallypossible- of them-not merelytheir lack 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 of female artistsby the suggestionthat these 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. Moderncognitive self-images incorporate technologically me- figurinesare physiologicallyrealistic but others are diated visual information,including that frommirrors, even schematic or stylized.McDermott considersthe whole thoughsuch stimuli would not have been available during the evo- lutionof the brain. This observationis importantbecause the PKG image to show "a realismin representationwhich some- stylesuggests that autogenousvisual informationonce playeda times approaches scientificexactitude." One wonders, greaterrole in self-consciousbehavior. The contributionof two first,why artistsof so long ago should have been con- differentsources of visual informationto our modernself-image cerned with such precision, which is surely an ex- may explainwhy normal women as well as those sufferingfrom modern feature. it all the eatingdisorders such as anorexianervosa consistently overesti- tremely Second, appears matethe width of their own bodies(Bozzi I988, Slade and Russell women must have producedthe images while standing I973). up, so thatthey could keep lookingdown at theirbodies

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 249

fromdifferent angles, which strikes one as somewhat the notion that an immediatevisual templateis neces- implausible. sary to sculpt an image. Direct observationof a model Finally, McDermott's theory is particularlyuncon- while workingshould not be necessary.Elaborate Upper vincingin its attemptto explain the abbreviatednature Paleolithicstone technologydemonstrates the 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 foreshortenedfront mental templatesrather than directcopying, and sculpt- surface of her upper arm"; "when arm and hands are ing fromremembered form is certainlythe case in ani- crossed over the breasts, they present their narrowest mal depictions. The Vogelherd mammoth and horse aspect to the eye in an edge-onview"; "the lower body probablydid not stand fortheir portraits. and feet are optically correctfor the point of view em- The second assumptionis that the sculpturesare all ployed in their representation";and "for a pregnant self-portraits.Although possible, this is fundamentally woman, inspectionof the 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, without resort to circularreasoning, and to know theirtrue shape, size, and proportions.Sim- be turnedinto the generalizationthat all must therefore ilarly,when one is sittingdown (and I would assume be self-portraits.Competing hypotheses viewing the 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 unrealisticadherence to even the most heavilypregnant woman must remember a rigid,erect posture to explain the misperceptionsof what her lower extremitieslooked like, even if she, like scale presentin these statuettes.Feet and legs do appear all the other artists,was totallyignoring the bodies of reducedin size relativeto the torsowhen viewed while everyonearound her! If,as McDermottclaims, "any im- standing,but their correctproportions are readilyevi- age of self as an independentthree-dimensional entity dent when sitting.The same is true forforearms and must be the mental combinationor integrationof those hands, which are probably the most frequentlyseen multiple viewpoints possible for direct visual self- parts of the body and appear foreshortenedonly if held inspection,"then why do these not include theperfectly at the sides. Ifthe autogenoushypothesis is correct,then easy viewpointsof the body's extremities? commonly observed featuressuch as hands should be In short,one can at most accept that self-inspection prominentrather than rare.I findit inconceivablethat may perhaps have contributedto some figurinesand UpperPaleolithic people wereunaware of their own attri- may possiblyhave led to stylisticconventions that were butes fromobservations of theirown bodies in different adopted and copied formillennia. But I am totallyun- posturesand of the bodies of otherhumans. convinced that all these figureswere carvedby upright The final assumption is that without technological pregnantwomen who were onlyinterested in the photo- assistance the self-viewingperspective is the only way graphicallyaccurate reproductionof certain parts of an Upper Paleolithic person could develop a self-image theirbodies as seen fromparticular angles. I believe the and that this explains the absence of facial featuresand self-inspectionidea is an interestingfootnote to the misshapenheads on many of the .Reflections studyof female figurines,not the revelationof a funda- in water are distortedif the observeris standing,but mental factorin theirproduction. bendingover a calm pool to drinkproduces an accurate image of the face and upperbody. Likewise, if sculptors were having to contorttheir bodies to see their own MICHAEL S. BISSON buttocks,then it is hard to believe that theywould not Departmentof Anthropology,McGill University,85 5 have simply crossed theireyes brieflyto see theirown SherbrookeSt. W., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A noses. 2T7. 5 x 95 Hair, although outside the visual field,is frequently depicted on the sculptures.This importantcontradic- This paper joins a growing list of works advocating tion to the autogenous hypothesisis ascribedto tactile new perspectives for interpretingUpper Paleolithic knowledge.A similarargument is made forthe enlarged Gravettian-stylefemale figurines and seeingthem as 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 mendedfor suggesting new 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-inspectionperspective would seem to explainmany which, being the most distinctiveindividual character- of the departuresof these sculpturesfrom naturalistic istics, should be included in a self-portrait? attributesand bodyproportions. Unfortunately, this hy- The most reasonable explanation for this is not the pothesis is based on a series of assumptions that are observationalconstraints of the self-inspectionperspec- unrealistic. It also minimizes the significanceof vari- tive but culturallyconditioned choice. This is hintedat abilityin facial,hair, and genitalattributes that does not when differencesare attributedto "regionalvariations." fitthe hypothesis. Ifchoice was exercisedin creatingthese sculptures,then Four assumptionsunderlie this interpretation.First is the presence or absence of featuresmust have cultural

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 250 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

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 androcentrictheories concisely outlined by Mc- sculptures that are unambiguouslyfemale. The seven Dermottbut also challengesthe view that these figures specimenswith ovoid heads have no facialfeatures other mightonly symbolisebroad non-personal concepts such than a hairline.Two crudelyfashioned specimens have as fertilityor motherhoodand that theywere produced dorsoventrallycompressed heads with incisionsfor eyes to conformto standardisedconventions. This will be and mouthsas well as distincthairlines. The finalpiece, an attractiveproposition for those seeking to engender the "double figurine,"possesses a flattenedtriangular archaeology,as well as those such as Knight (I991; head with a distinct mouth and probablyother facial Knight,Power, and Watts I995) who offerbehavioural featuresthat were violentlyremoved in antiquity(Bis- hypothesesto account forwhat theyregard as the "sym- son and Bolduc I994). Because I believe these specimens bolic revolution"of the Upper Paleolithic. However,as to have been producedover a time span exceeding5,ooo McDermottadmits, his hypothesishas not been system- years (Bisson,Tisnerat, and White I996) this patterning aticallytested and relies on casual referenceto the mate- is best interpretedas reflectingthe changingsymbolic rial and the absence or, at least, rarityof male represen- significanceof the face over time. The autogenoushy- tations in this period for support.This is a drawback pothesis,which suggestsunchanging perceptions of 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 withthe Willendorfi figurine the hypothesis,it may be useful in interpretingsome and some otherssuch as Avdeevo 2 and 78, Gagarino i, specimens. For differentreasons, I agree with McDer- Kostenki i-I figures3 and 4, and the yellow steatiteex- motton the likelihoodthat many of these figurineswere amplefrom Grimaldi (Delporte I993:I24, I69, I74, I76, made by women and referto reproduction. I63, and ioo, respectively),whereas in other examples self-inspectionmight be said to have had an influence, although the model does not fit closely. Avdeevo 77-I JILL COOK and 77-2 and Kostenkii-I and i and 2 (DelporteI993: Departmentof Prehistoricand Romano-British I73, i62) show natural,observed profiles, 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, although self-viewingmay contributeto char- England. 2o x 95 acteristicssuch as the protuberantbuttocks of the "pun- chinello" fromGrimaldi or the Savignano piece or the Seeking the significanceof female figurinesin the mid- flatteningin pieces such as the perforatedGrimaldi fig- dle Upper Palaeolithic is a quixotic adventurein which ure or the tall figuresincluding Avdeevo i and Gagarino McDermottproves himself to 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 reality in the natural self-representa- face-on.Similarly, it does not suit the possible birthing tion of theirsoft curves and fullfigures. Is he dreaming, figuresfrom Sireuil and Tursac (Duhard I993c) and pos- or is his quest successful? sibly Kostenki I3 (Delporte I993:i68). Further,McDer- Despite attemptsto subordinatePKG-style figurines mottignores the more enigmaticfemale representations to taxonomicformulae (Gvozdover I989, Leroi-Gourhan suchas Dolni VestoniceI2-I4 and Predmosti(pp. I40, I968a) or to suggestthat theirimportance lies in a par- I49-50), whichclearly do 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; otherwise they individualhas been encouragedby researchsuch as that would appear as short,disconnected strips. In short,the of Duhard (I99oa, I993b), which providesanalogues for autogenoustheory might be said to correspondto a gen- the physical formsdepicted but evidentlyregards them eral idea of what PKG-stylefigurines look like, but this as depictionsmade by others (e.g., Duhard I993c:290). perceptionis in itselfremarkably biased by the greater McDermottgoes one step fartherand suggeststhat they familiarityof the Willendorfi figureand belies the real are self-representations.This echoes the alreadywidely diversitypresent. held view that these figuresare not only about women In an attemptto strengthenhis case, McDermottuses (Cook n.d., Delporte I993, Duhard I993b, Marshack the absence or rarity of male figures in Pavlovian- iggib, Rice I98I) and extends it to suggest that they Kostenkian-Gravettiancontexts to emphasise a gyno- may have been made by women forwomen because self- centric interpretation.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 Aurignacianstatuette from picted, perhaps being her totem, and that the act of Hohlenstein-Stadelincluded in the argument.This piece reproducingherself in figurineform may also have spe- is outside the period under considerationboth chrono-

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines| 25I

logicallyand stylistically.Whether the heavily restored 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 carried in the formsof stance and muscularityof the figurecertainly distin- clothingcould all providesuch information.Transcrib- guish it fromPKG-style female figures but comparewell ingit would have resultedin a two-or three-dimensional with otherAurignacian figures such as the Galgenberg image somewhat differentfrom a purelyself-regarding "dancer" or the much smallerivory bas-relief from Geis- one. But the figurinesare clearly not wholly self- senklosterle.However, it mightalso be noted thatthere regardinganyway; they include formalrecognition of are some similaritiesbetween Hohlenstein-Stadeland body parts (such as the top and back of the head or the the Brnofigure which McDermotttentatively accepts as 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 thoughfor an 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 referredto here by the reference"Marshack (I988)," rec- paratactic coherence was not itself self-regarding.(By ords made at the BritishMuseum when this object was definition it requires adopting an outside vantage offeredfor sale in I948 show that evidence was found point-not necessarilyequivalent to any real standpoint indicatingthat it was made recentlyon ancient ivory. in the world-from which an externalobject is viewed; These details aside, the absence of male representations forthe overall view presentedby the whole figurineto does not preclude male interestin, or manufactureof, be self-regarding,the makerwould have to be somewhat female figuresand should not be taken as supportfor a floatingoutside and all around herself.)In making a uniquely female originand use. It mightalso be useful "self-portrait,"in other words, the subjective must be to consider whethersome of these figuresincorporate objectified.Clearly any objectificationof the selfcan be both male and female sexual references(see, forexam- obedient to the demands of others.Thus it remains an ple, the profilesof Willendorf2, Dolni Vestonice 2, and open question whetherand how self-inspectiondata- Khotylevoi and the mammothmetapodial figures from let alone subjectivereality in relationto social expecta- Predmostiin DelporteI993:I35, I43, I85, andIo5). tion-were coordinatedwith data fromother sources in Overall, it may be said that,combined with Duhard's the making of the figurines. approachto realism(I 993b, c, I995), awarenessof the 2. McDermottcomes perilouslyclose to indulgingone self-regardingview offersa valuable way of looking at of the hoariest fallacies of art criticism-namely, the and appreciatingthe figures.However, it cannotbe used idea thatimage makerssimply copy the image projected to engender the interpretationof these objects, as it on the retina of their (own) eyes, the question being lacks any appreciationof their context, 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-dimensional simulacrum or illusion of demic outcome of 2oth-centurysocial evolutionjust as one's own retinalimage; reproducedon a contact lens, predictableas Efimenko'sfinding female 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 Morgan and 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-transcriptionproduced according to WHITNEY DAVIS techniques of "fabrication"that McDermott tells us Departmentof Art History,Northwestern University, nothing about. No doubt the fabricatormight intend Evanston,Ill. 60208, U.S.A. 9 x 95 that the copy-imagetranscribe a 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,nothing prevents an autogenous view from male figurines."For the purposeof this 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 styleof the figurines.He suggeststhat the can be constructed artificially(rather than through three-dimensionalform of the figureswas derivedfrom direct transcriptionof the retinal image of binocular self-generatedand self-regardingvisual information.The stereoscopicvision). McDermott provides no 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"-is not the only possible self-viewingas theywere supposedlycopied (but how?) one. by that veryviewer. Althoughthe two types of image i. It is not true that "beforerepresentational art or could be morphologicallyindiscernible, only the latter mirrors"one could inspect only his or her own body or is necessarilyan image made by the "self" of its own that of another person for "informationabout human body.It is fascinatingto suppose thatPaleolithic art arti-

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 2521 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

ficiallyconstructed fictively "autogenous" views-just ing in the perceptionand representationof it by other as Renaissance painters artificiallyconstructed fictive people (Lacan I977). I am sympatheticto the attempt perspectives-but this is a point quite differentfrom 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- distinguishingbetween egocentricity and "subjectivity" sarystage of copy-transcriptioninto the fabricationpro- should be one of the prime interestsof 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 if thereis such a representationit cannotbe conven- pictorialconvention available forreproduction, revision, tional. Although McDermott does not fully deal with and manipulationboth by the "self" and by many other 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 forstudents of prehistoricculture. tal" and "profile"depictions of parts of the human body can be combinedbut Egyptianart reproduces one typical combination(see Davis i989:io-29), SO thereare many HENRI DELPORTE ways in which "multiple" self-regardingviews could be ii, rue d'Hennemont,78IOO St. 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 autogenous images (i) objectively,the analysis of objects,with a broad and were necessarilymade by the verypersons who experi- increasinglyprecise description,and of the valuable in- enced just those kinds of retinalimages-that the figu- dications of theirdistribution and associations, and (2) rines were 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, omitting the Mal'ta and Bu- accordingto a general (but unknown)paratactic princi- ret' Siberian statuettes without explanation but cer- ple, someone combined self-inspection-derivedimages tainly because theirfigurative scheme, like that of the of some partsof women's bodies-or imitationsof such Magdalenian, differsfrom that of the European Pavlov- images-with other informationto make a three- ian-Kostenkian-Gravettiangroup. One major character- dimensional picture that is a convincingbut strongly istic of many of the female figurinesof the lattergroup conventionalized visual fiction of (or for) Paleolithic is a deformationof the body involvinga hypertrophyof women's self-imageof theirown bodies, whateversuch thepelvis regionand an atrophyof the extremities(head, self-images,both retinaland psychological,might actu- legs, and feet). Leroi-Gourhan(I965, I97I) considered ally have been (presumablythey were quite variable).As this deformationsuggestive of a lozenge-shapedform, that phrasing suggests,I would emphasize the medi- de facto and not intentionallyconstructed. In his opin- ated-ideological, fantasmic (imaginary),symbolic- ion and thatof many other researchers including myself, nature of the imagery.McDermott rushes to inferthat this process tends to place symbolicvalue on the essen- the images bespeak Paleolithic female image makers' tial partsof the femalebody. Duhard (I993),for his part, knowledgeof and controlover their own 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-day politics, progressive women showing the same so-called deformations. though it may be, but I see nothing in McDermott's McDermott's theoryis original: that the figurines' account that preventsus fromsupposing that the figu- morphologydoes not arise fromsymbolism or intentbut rineswere made by men to providedefinitive images for 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 distinctivelymodern notion has any place in this dis- head at a go' angle. The differencesin the figures'pro- cussion at all-appear and oughtto appearto them,even portions are to be linked to the age of the artist and fromtheir own "point of view." This interpretationis thereforeto the sexual stages of her life. This idea has quite as consistentwith contemporaryfeminist theories alreadybeen expressedby Duhard (I993) and Rice (I981). of subjectivityas McDermott's. This theoryprovides an explanationfor body dispropor- 4. To "represent"the "self" is to treatit as an object. tions: the reductionof the head to a button,the absence What has its originin autogenousexperience, or egocen- of facial features,the reliefof the 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 worldbefore the "mirrorstage" in theory-which, without condemning it, I do not which the subject is quadratedby verifyingits own be- share-is that it implies that the female and perhaps

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 253

also the animal statuettes were sculpted by women, writtenby insidious sociobiological premisesand rem- which is conceivable but goes againstsome hypotheses, nants of androcentricvoyeurism of which even he is especially erotic ones such as Guthrie's(I984). (apparently)unaware. I limit my discussion to the ves- Without formally opposing McDermott's ideas, I tiges of androcentricvoyeurism I find most troubling would like to make several points: and comment brieflyon related issues of typologyand i. The figurines from the Pavlovian-Kostenkian- classificationthat are, in my opinion,left unresolved. Gravettiangroup are not the oldest. In the CentralEuro- Androcentricprojections still embeddedin this autog- pean Aurignacian,at Hohlenstein, at Geissenklosterle enous account take two forms.The firstis McDermott's (mentionedby McDermott),and, above all, at Galgen- continualreference to the "normal-sized"and "average" berg (Neugebauer-MareschI989), there are statuettes woman. What, pray tell, is a normal-sizedwoman, and that do not follow the rules of construction,symbolic whose average is the appropriateone for this 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, poorly nourished of the 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- radiochemicalanalyses have been conductedon it. Nev- nya? fromJapan? from the Basque country?How are we ertheless,it is possible, though exceptional,that there to comparean "average 26-year-oldmother-to-be with a are male figurines in the Pavlovian-Kostenkian- 34C bust" with (similar?)females living extremelydif- Gravettiangroup, for example, the belted figurinefrom ferentlives ca. 26,ooo years B.P. in what is now the Brassempouy,according to Duhard. Czech Republic,Slovakia, easternor westernRussia, or 3. McDermott is imprecise in mentioningconnec- southwesternFrance? On methodologicalgrounds I take tions between the Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettianexception to McDermott's strategyof averagingout em- group and the Magdalenian. We have to insist on the piricalvariation and question the wisdom of this overly factthat the engravingsof La Marche,the styleof which 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- separatesbrute visual perceptionfrom the culturallens mott,along with otherEnglish-speaking writers, that he throughwhich all seeing is accomplished.Much of this take a look at French-speakingliterature, for example, theoryis premisedon an art-historyargument that so- Leroi-Gourhan'swork, the role of which is misunder- cioeconomic and cultural contextsmotivate and struc- stood or, it seems to me, given insufficientattention. tureformal vocabularies, or what in archaeologyare still called stylisticconventions. But behind that position is a corollary:that all perceptionand representationis cul- MARCIA-ANNE DOBRES turallymediated. This does not mean that each person Archaeological Research Facility,Department of "sees" the physicalworld differently.But we do experi- Anthropology,University of 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 betterargument could be made for the polysemic our background interpretiveframeworks (Anderson nature of prehistoricvisual imagerythan to inventory I979:I40-42; ForgeI970; Lewis-Williamsand Dowson the number of interpretationsproposed over the past I988; WashburnI994:i02; among many such argu- centuryfor the meaningand/or function of the archaeo- ments).What this means froma combinedfeminist art- logical materials dubiously called Venus figurines.In historyand psychologicalperspective is that a woman's this provocativeessay McDermott adds anothernovel representationof her body is never simplyan objective idea to that ever-growinglist-a list clearlyresponsive recordingof what she physically sees when looking to the historicallyspecific social, 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 veloped theirideas. The most prevalentparadigms struc- 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 this account 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 of corporealself and body,inseparably intertwined found in the way he highlightsfemale self-expression as they are, that necessarilyprecedes any furthercon- and the conscious mastering(mistressing?) of knowledge 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 degree of conscious agency humans do. McDermott privilegesthe physical distor- into the question, this attempt is nonetheless under- tions that come with looking over one's shoulder at

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 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-viewingis the typicalgoal, we mightexplore "sees" much more and much less than this (Brooke- the possibilitythat it was in the act ofcreating the imag- 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 finalform re- about the human body based on "direct visual self- flectedabout obstetricaland gynecologicalknowledge. inspection" is possible outside this cultural lens fails Withoutmore concernfor technological issues, 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 changedradically over the past threecenturies or 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 withempirical diversity encoun- sized naked femalesfrozen in stone. The time has come teredin the archaeologicalrecord, but on this point I do to considerthe multiple layeringof possible meanings, not think McDermott and I will ever agree. Consider- motivations,and materialconditions informing the pro- able attentionis devoted to only two facetsof material duction and use of these artifactsrather than promotea variabilitywithin this corpus of imagery,and in both single best explanationno matterhow original. cases the purposeis to play down theirrelevance to 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,intrasite spatial distribu- tion ofrecovered specimens, archaeological context, and McDermott assumes that the absence of complete ana- 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 explainedby theirmode 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-newtheory should not be re- variability,homogeneity, and heterogeneityin archaeo- jected a priori;after all, any innovativeidea can move logical data is in the eye ofthe beholder.Surely how one us fartheralong on the path of knowledge,and we must goes about lumping or splittingartifacts into arbitrary congratulateMcDermott for his imaginativeness.It will analytical categories depends on what the researcher not, however,come as a surpriseto anyone who knows wants to understand.But if the subject at hand were my work on the subject (e.g., Duhard I989a, iggoa, b, lithicsthere would 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 overwhelmingmajority of representa- nized-each highlightingpotentially meaningful attri- tionsof humans in thisperiod is female,males arenot ab- butes of one sortor another-and fewwould be satisfied sent. There are at least two fromFrance-the "Priape" with a study of "blades." While McDermott prefersto fromLaussel (Musee d'Aquitaine) and the "figurinea la focus on the general category"female," I believe that ceinture"from Brassempouy (Musee des AntiquitesNati- contextual and empirical attributespertaining to raw onales), which has a reliefof the scrotumand penis that material, stylistic details, archaeological provenience is carefullysculpted and polished (see Duhard I987a). and relatedmaterial patterning, quality of rendering, and Accordingto McDermott'shypothesis, when the indi- completenessof subject matter must be made part ofthe vidual looks at herselffull-length, assuming that the eye analysis and not merelylisted as supplementalregional acts like a wide-anglelens therewill be distortionof the conventions.In this regardI am not at all clear why a bodyimage, with the chest longerthan the lower limbs, 3,ooo-km"cultural corridor" is appropriatefor bounding 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 harderfor McDermott to discount does not act like a wide-anglelens; its focal corresponds empiricalvariability in 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 behavioralprocesses in examinationand fromthe examinationof others in such prehistory,with a concern for archaeological context, a way as to verifyour identityin appearancewhile notic- or with fundamentaltechnological concerns. Instead it ing differences.The women supposed to be represented startedwith a novel observationabout morphological afterself-examination would not have missed the ana- parallels,then proceededto rallytheory to supportand tomical nonconformityof theirbodies, and if theyhad explain it. Ratherthan thinkingof these images within theircompanions would have pointedit out.

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 255

This theorydoes not account forthe facts observed. JAMES ELKINS Reductionof the feetmay be explainedby theirdistance Departmentof Art 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- foreither their absence, theirreduction (even when they mott's paper that preventsme fromengaging it as an reston thebreasts [Lespugue, Willendorf, the "manchede archaeologicalor anthropologicalessay, and that is the poignard"]),or theirexaggeration when theyrest on the definitionof self-representation.If "autogenous self- belly(Parabita). The hippedattitude that I have described representation"is not a redundancy,then I take it to forthe torsofrom Brassempouy can onlybe explainedin mean self-representationthat attemptsto do justice to termsof examination by someone else or referenceto the the viewer's perspective,as opposed to self-representa- posture of another individual. A face like that of the tion thatpresents the vieweras he or she may appearto "dame a la capuche" fromBrassempouy (Musee des Anti- someone else, or in normativeproportions. quites Nationales),which is a trueportrait in spiteof the At the veryoutset thereare problems.The conceptof missingmouth and the roughshape ofan eye,could only perspectivein this sense derivesfrom Plato's distinction have been sculptedby anotherperson unless the individ- betweensculptures made accordingto the actual propor- ual could look at herselfin a watermirror-and ifthe lat- tions of a figure (eikastike) and those "semblances" terall the otherheads could and should have been simi- (phantastike)that are "opticallycorrected" so thattheir larlydetailed, which is not the case. The realismof some proportionsappear correctfrom a certainpoint of view vulvae, incorporated(Monpazier, Grimaldi) or isolated (Munman I985; Trimpi I983: I I3). Hence the idea of an (fromthe Aurignacianto the Magdalenian), is not ex- intentionallyuncorrected representation is decisively plainedby this theory. It is impossiblefor any woman, un- Western,and Plato's interest in distortedand undis- less she is a contortionistor has the help of a mirror,to tortedsculptures is an integralpart of the Westerndevel- see her whole vulva. Some vulvae are detailedin such a opmentof the concept of drawnand sculptedlinear per- way (labia minora,clitoris, vestibule) that they could only spective (Elkins I994). In this context it is especially have been viewed by someone else. importantthat the concern with perspectival distor- My view is completely differentfrom McDermott's tions, recessions,and proportionalitieshas been so per- except on one point: completeanatomical realismis ab- vasive in Westernthought that it took an iconoclastic sent duringthe Gravettian(and the Upper Paleolithicin thinker like Maurice Merleau-Pontyto make a con- general),but thereis realism of detail with regardto the certed effortto overturnthe demands of perspective. regionsof the female body involvedin the reproductive Merleau-Ponty'sphenomenology of the body stresses functions.In my view, if the medio-corporalregion is 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 female sexual characteristics, forexample, a foot or a hand mightbe depictedoverly characteristicsthat allow recognitionas a human being, largebecause it is experiencedthat way (Merleau-Ponty specificationof gender,and readingof physiological his- I962, I99 3). But virtuallyall figurativework in the West tory(young or adult, gravidor not, nursingor not, etc.). continuesto play with perspectivaloptions, even when The depictions of bodies are exclusively sculpted,this it engagesin a critiqueof perspective's canonical forms. being the only way to representvolumes, and in the So it is naturalfor post-Renaissance Westerners to be body partsrepresented, having examined almost I5,000 interestedin these issues: but even if we allow that a women of all ages throughout25 yearsof gynecological non-Western,prehistoric sculptor could 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 entirefield of autogenous self-representation of theirbreasts, 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 the possibilitieswe projectonto the material.It is not the reductionor omission of distal parts is a matterof at all irrelevantthat an interestin autogenousself-repre- the graphicsetting of the work; unnecessaryto the rec- sentationcharacterizes contemporary Western art more ognitionof humanness,gender, or physiologicalstate of than modern,early modern,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? breasts but quite oftentowards the abdomen,focusing In that context I offerthree alternativesto McDer- attentionon its reproductivefunction (Duhard I989b). mott's insistence on the idea that any autogenous self- AlthoughI do not share Leroi-Gourhan'sideas about representationwill involve enlarged torsos and dwin- the geometricstructure of the figures(Duhard I995), I dling limbs. agree with him that figurativeart is directlylinked to First: a representationmight make use of reflections language and much closer to writing,in a broad sense, in water (not a difficultfeat, as anyone knows who has than to art (Leroi-GourhanI964-65). triedthe experiment)in orderto producean autogenous

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 2561 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

FIG. i. JoanSemmel, Hand Down, I977, watercolor.Courtesy the 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 All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 257

self-representationmore in accord with actual propor- tions of the body. In I979 the artistElsa Dorfmanmade such a representationusing modernmeans, thinkingof herselfas the ;the photo shows her nude, holding the camera up to her eye, reflectedin a hotel mirror.Second: a representationcan be explicitly fromthe point of view of the artistand not involve any diminutionof the limbs. Beginningin the early I970S the artistJoan Semmel has made such representations (figs.i and 2), includinga numberbased on the idea of A\ the Venus of Willendorf.(Others do involve diminution of the limbs: it is a choice she makes, and she considers herselffree to choose eithernormative or distortedrep- resentations-eithereikastike orphantasike.) It is inter- estingthat both workspreserve proportions but cropthe body,an optionthat is also available in sculpture.Third: a self-representationmight seek to be a little more lit- eral about the kinds of distortionMcDermott describes by includingthe orbitof the eye, cheek, and nose as the largestelements in the visual field-as ErnstMach did in severalfamous representations (fig. 3). Mach's picture T4~~~~~~~ is the literal embodimentof what McDermott has in mind, and it follows his own stricturesmuch more closely than the prehistoricfigurines do. If "autogenous FIG. 3. ErnstMach, The Field of Vision (Mach self-representation"were at work in the Upper Paleo- I886:I4, fig. I). lithic, one might expect to find examples more self- consistentlyperspectival. And consider,as an envoi,rep- resentationsthat involve dwindlinglimbs but are not self-representationsat all, forexample, some late draw- ings by the Renaissance painter JacopoPontormo (fig. 4).

FIG 4S f ' F X

A~~~~I

FIG .4 .Jacopo Pontormo,Study Jor The Resurrection,Florence, Uffizi.

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 258 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

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 argumentspresented indi- study,whether or not it concernsprehistoric materials, cate little familiaritywith ivoryas a raw material and should begin with a considerationof the possibilities, the problems of preservation.Even if fossil tusks were which are virtuallyall Western,virtually all modern, used, the appendage is intentional.It may mean many and without exceptionpostclassical. 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 Institutfuir Ur- 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 McDermottpresents another new view on an old topic, piece; it does not fit the 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 body verymuch resembles ettes are interpretedas autogenous self-representations.the pestles made fromtusk segmentsknown in the Pav- Two argumentsagainst this view are the representations 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. If the beingtruncated or even absent,whereas seen fromabove PKG-stylefemales are placed in theirchronological posi- theyshould be enlargedor ofnormal size. The bas-relief tion, theycannot be used to discuss the originbut only fromGeissenklosterle (Hahn i986:iI7-I9), forexample, the evolutionof figurative art. Mobiliary art in the early has more a symmetricalarrangement of the upper and Upper Paleolithic startswith normal-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 oftenabbreviated and only in a rhomboidoutline. laterstage concentrateson the famousPKG-style female Chronologyis handled ratherloosely here. The PKG- figurines.These earlier statuettes of animals and hu- style figurinesare sometimes called the earliestprehis- mans were necessarilyseen by others.If McDermott's toricrepresentations, sometimes attributedto the mid- conclusions on the self-representationsof women hold, dle Upper Paleolithic. They are not the oldest such then it is only for the middle Upper Paleolithic. The figurines;in the Aurignacianthey range between 36,ooo evident variety in their form is not covered by his and 30,000 B.P., and similar dates exist forRussian ani- scheme. mal representations.The fewAurignacian anthropomor- 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, Zelnyrtrh 7, 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-Gravettianfemale Stratzingis assumed to be female but is not considered figurinesare producedin accordance with observations by McDermott; its proportions,with long extremities, by females themselves is certainlyprovocative. Some and its liftedarm do not fithis PKG scheme. criticalobservations may be made. The discussion ofmale figurinesis an attemptto chal- Instead of a selection,a representativesample or even lenge the apparentlycontradictory evidence to the as- the whole corpus of known PKG-stylefigurines should sumed important role 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(length 30 cm) is supposed to be female.Schmid tures (e.g., Brassempouy,the male figurinefrom Brno, (I989), for example, considers the beginning of the Kostjenki I983, Avdjejevo I977), and some have unreal- throat,the fold under the navel, a breastfragment, the istic facial features(Dolni Vestonice,the Predmostife- pubic triangle,and the missing mane as female attri- male figureengraved on mammoth tusk). As for the butes. The throatincision is, however,too vague to be arms,they oftencontradict the enlargedor emphasized considered the start of a female breast; the fold may breasts, being significantlyreduced (Willendorf,Les- occur in men, and the missing mane is a featurefound pugue, Gagarini 2 and 4, Predmostf);this cannot be the in the recentlydiscovered Chauvet parietalpaintings of resultof self-inspection.Some figurinesdo not have ex- lions (ChauvetI995:97; Clotteset al. I995). The pubic aggeratedanatomical featuresthat might be explained triangle,marked by its protrudingposition, 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-longunworked one be- lower extremities(Gagarino 3, Avdjejevo I), and the

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines| .259

figurinefrom Jelisejevitchihas an exaggeratedlower barelles does the same. Many of the engravedMagdelen- body,especially the lower extremities. ian females depicted on the La Marche limestone slabs Evidentlysome artistsstressed some parts of the fe- are obese in the mannerof the Gravettian"Venus" figu- male body (breasts,belly, buttocks)and reduced others rines; the majorityhave upraisedarms ofnormal width; (facial features,arms, legs), but this is farfrom a 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-Gravettianfigurines, and the reasonfor this mals, engravedby othersas elementsof home-site ritual is probablymore complex than the distortionsof self- ratherthan as self-portraits(Pales and de St.-Pereuse inspection. I976). The human arms in all of these femaledepictions are of "normal" width. An incised Gravettianfemale fromKostenki i, on a fragmentof marl,also has an arm ALEXANDER MARSHACK of normal width that is extended outward (Abramova Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand 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 ofthe relativeunim- The ethnographicand anthropologicalrecord provides portanceof the arms and hands and the greatersymbolic no evidence that women in hunter-gatherercultures importanceof the breastsand hips? Or because the arms everproduced "autogenous" representationsof theirob- were seen, fromabove, autogenously?Apparently not. served anatomical "selves." Female images were often In engravingand bas-reliefcarving it is easy to depict produced but always as indicative and/or mythic extendedor raised arms. Small ivoryand stone figurines symbols. are,however, relatively difficult to carvein threedimen- The earliest Upper Paleolithic female representation sions. Even ifivory is "softened"by soakingor steaming, is from the Aurignacian of Galgenberg,Austria, ca. as was suggestedby Semenov (i964), it requires slow, 30,000 ? B.P. It is a greenserpentine carving of a nude laborious whittling. "Free" arms extended from the with one breast juttingout to the left,the otherfacing body,thin ankles, feetattached to thin ankles, and thin frontward,the vulva clearly indicated, the left arm necks would have been verylikely to breakeither during 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 of ritualperformance or ritualuse rather per Paleolithic femalefigurines suggest that the concep- than "naturalistic" depiction, including a lion-headed tual Gravettian"lozenge" noted by Leroi-Gourhanhad anthropomorphfrom Hohlenstein-Stadel and a carved as much to do with the difficultyof carvingthe human bas-relief,probably male, 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:I2 I I-.22). crude,rapidly carved anthropomorphicfigure from Vo- An unfinishedfigurine made 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- were animal carvingsincluding a lion fromthis site. The tions by whittlingand scrapingin differentregions and underlyingritual aspect of this Aurignacianimagery is directions(Abramova I967b:g,I. 5[3]). The bent head, crucialfor any understandingof the human imagerythat with its "down-turned"face, produced a thick, strong would follow. neck duringcarving. The armswould have restedon the The Gravettian("PKG-style") females presentdiffer- 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-reliefGravettian depictions of humans have been applied to both the figurineand the tool dur- have raised or extendedarms: Laussel providesthree im- ing the scrapingand carving,particularly in areas ofdeep ages of females holding animal horns in a raised arm; indentation.The Kostenki figurineapparently broke in 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,apparently angrily birth(my directmicroscopic analysis). Later Magdalen- bashed across the chest,broken, and discarded.Broken- ian engravingsand bas-reliefsalso depict females with offheads and figurineswith missingheads are common raised or extended arms: a Laugerie Basse pregnantfe- in the Gravettian.The productionproblems in these male lyingprone has raised arms under a phallic male carvingswere, therefore,different from those involved reindeer;an engravingfrom Isturitz on bone shows two females in tandem with raised arms; an engravingand I. The Galgenbergcarving has, probablyfor this reason,massive two bas-reliefsfrom La Madeleine depict nude females armsthat are as wide as thehead and thethighs but no wristsand with raised,bent arms; and an engravingfrom Les Com- no ankles.The bodyis not obese but thatof a youngwoman.

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 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,probably because of the impracticalityof carving Longlimbs or thin distal appendages in the relatively soft,breakable limestone. The Willendorffigurine also carries a 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- fure consists of long, twined or plaited braids coiled around the head, recalling the coiled coiffureon a Gravettianivory head fromDolni Vestonice (Marshack iggia:30I). The zigzag abstraction of twining is the same as thatfound on the Willendorffigurine's bracelets 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 mature females; 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 Willendorffigurine is also thicklycovered with red ocher,a featurefound on other Gravettianfemales (cf. Laussel) that suggestsrit- ual use of the image-a suggestionthat relatesit to the overmarkedearlier Aurignacian images 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,broken female `iurine of claylike 4,c; Marshack 991ia:29 i). But, above all, the Willendorf chalk fromKostenki I, indicatingthe mode of figurinehas the most carefullyand exquisitely carved carving.Height I75Scm. realisticvulva in the entireEuropean Upper Paleolithic. It is placed farunder the voluminous breastsand stom- ach, where it could not have been seen by self- inspection.It is carvedwith an accuracythat could have in creatingengraved or bas-reliefhuman images. The been producedonly by another,that is, by someone gen- conceptual "lozenge" was apparently,in part at least, erallyfamiliar with female anatomy (fig.3). a response to the problem of carvingappendages and Gravettianfemale images 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,under the breasts,or ten,apparently, these attributesthat "marked" and gave at the sides, and some have no arms.The "black Venus" culturalrelevance to 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 strikinglyapparent in one figurinethat is inadequately Gravettian geometric,schematic female on an ivory described and 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 exaggeratedprotruding rear, as well as largelyinvited by 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 they were oftenminimally that culturallyrelevant symbolic attributes or determi- modifiedto heighten their effect(see Delporte i982). natives were often,also, added to the figurinesafter the Two crude eyes were intentionallyscalloped onto the basic anatomy had been carved. These were aspects of Monpazier head, and the breasts were lightlyscraped an underlyingstyle ratherthan of autogenous observa- to heightentheir realism. It is the aspect of exaggerated

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female FigurinesI 26i

FIG. 2. Head of thelimestone Willendorf figurine, indicating the spiral of a twinedcoiffure carved as a zigzag motif.

pregnancy,however, that is the object's key feature,and That diversityis not a result of autogenousobservation it was this featurethat was addressedby producingone or of "conscious mastery of the material conditions of the most dramatic modificationsof an image to be unique to women's reproductivelives" but perhapsrep- foundin the Upper Paleolithic.Directly under the "preg- resented the opposite-the recognitionof and ritual, nant" belly a huge,wide-open, very deep oval vulva (fig. mythologizedparticipation in the uncertaintiesand 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 symbol of powermentand mastery,"either political or ideological, the "portal" throughwhich the fetalinfant carried in the distendedstomach above would emerge.(Duhard I987) This aspect and view of the vulva could probablyonly or hearth-associated/open-airshelter contexts-might have had have been seen by a midwifeor anotherfemale who was somethingto do withthe development of innovative obstetric prac- aiding in a delivery.It is thereforepossible that this tices(midwives?) that Trinkaus suggests were part of the biological transitionto modernH. sapiens" (i983:222). Data such as thoseI vulva and figurinewere "created" and used in a ritual have presentedhere would form part of ongoing inquiry into such seekingan easy and safe delivery.2 practices,but "innovativeobstetric practices" would surelyhave I have long documentedthe diversityin Upper Paleo- involvedsymbolic and mythicintervention. Such symbolicbehav- lithic female imageryand its uses, includingthe diver- ior need not have been an aspectof social "empowerment"or of controlover the materialconditions of pregnancyand childbirth. sityin the so-calledVenus figurines(Marshack 199 ia,b). Symbolicand materialbehaviors relating to femaleprocesses in the EuropeanGravettian may not have been muchdifferent from behaviorsin otherhuman culturesearlier, later, and elsewhere. 2. McDermottcites Conkey(i983), who thereremarks that the The EuropeanUpper Paleolithic merely provides artifactual evi- "mislabelledVenus figurines-so often recovered from 'domestic' dencein stoneand bone for an earlyregional form of such behavior.

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 262 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

FIG. 3. Lower half of the Willendorffigurine, indicatingthe carved pubis and vulva as well as the thickknees and the minuscule feet,lacking ankles.

but indicationsof a symbolicattempt at influencingand participatingin the periodicities,equations, and diffi- culties of the processes involved. A two-sidedamulet FIG. 4. Naturally shaped limonite formfrom fromGrimaldi (Marshack i986) has a pregnantimage on one face and a nonpregnantfemale image on the other. Monpazier resemblinga pregnantfemale with large It may have been worn by a woman seekingpregnancy buttocks.Height SS mm. and a safe deliverymuch as the Monpazierfigurine (and at least one of the Laussel bas-reliefs)may have been used. Among the Gravettianfigurines there are images of pregnancyas well as images of nonpregnancyand, of women in complex symboliccultures are, 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 autogenousdepiction but rather female morphologyand supposed "autogenous" con- one image in the variable tradition. tents of the Gravettianfigurines. McDermott's Eurocentricidea that the Gravettian The notion thatmature females across 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 forthousands of years conditionsof women" is derivedfrom the contemporary in orderto carve images of themselvesin hardmaterials effortto locate a "beginning"of human self-awareness is ratherstartling. Knowledge and use of the Gravettian in the European Upper Paleolithic (White i992, but see style would have been a much simpler process and Marshack I994) and the "genderingof archeology," with method.3 its effortto shiftarcheological, theoretical concern to- wards the role of women in earlyhuman cultures.The problemof "self " (seeMarshack i992, I994) andthe role 3. ? I996 by Alexander Marshack.

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 263

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 ceramicsfrom Dolni Vestonice I includes a her- maphroditicbeing. Finally,I would call attentionto the femalefigurines that do not fitthe self-viewingperspec- tive, such as the hematite figurinefound by Klima in I953 at Petrkovice(new excavationsin I994-95 have helped to clarifyits contextby unearthingnearby areas coveredwith powderedochre). The individualityof this slim female torso seems due to its youngerage and pos- sibly an earlier stage of pregnancy-differencesthat would be readilyrecognizable by an outside observer. As a terminologicalremark it may be noted that re- cent studies separate the Pavlovian and Kostenkian as 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- gest an alternativeinterpretation of the EuropeanPaleo- FIG. 5. Close-up of the deep, wide-openoval vulva lithic female representations.It is an audacious detour carved on the Monpazier figurine. fromperspectives that consideredonly the possibilityof male producersand male audiences,using female bodies as a mediumfor the purposeof trade, education, or com- JIRI SVOBODA municationof knowledge.Rather, McDermott proposes Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute exploring"the logical possibilitythat the firstimages of ofArchaeology, CZ-69I 29 Dolni VWstonice25, Czech the human figurewere made fromthe perspectiveof self Republic ([email protected]). I5 X 95 ratherthan other." This innovative approach exposes previously unstated assumptions that the prehistoric Wheneveran originalidea has been suggestedduring the representationswere object-oriented,voyeuristic images more than a centuryof interpretationof Paleolithic art, of an other. its authorhas tendedto overlookalternatives. This con- However, many of the argumentsthat McDermott tradictsthe obvious diversityof approachesin both the raises in supportof his claim and the conclusionsthat he creationand the interpretationof works of art (Conkey draws are eitherfactually or logicallyflawed. Multiple, I987). The present paper is relatively convincing in equally plausible interpretationsmay be offeredfor a set showing how the self-regardingperspective may have of data, but to be convincingthey require strong eviden- contributedto the developmentof the Gravettianfigu- tial support and logical consistency.Among the wide rinestyle. It elegantlyexplains the inabilityto reproduce range of issues raised by the article (e.g., the status of heads and the exaggeratedproportions of the protruding realism,memory, and functionalityin the originsof rep- partsof the body.It neverthelessseems likelythat other resentation),I will address only a few points directly features,such as massive bodies and shortextremities, relatedto the Central/EastEuropean archaeological evi- may be due to factorssuch as the technicalqualities of dence invoked and the logical moves made in its inter- the material,requiring a consistentshape duringboth pretation. fabricationand use (in contrast to, for example, the The argumentrests on a basic assumptionof stylistic bronze figurinesof the metal ages), the importanceof and cultural unity of the "Pavlovian-Kostenkian- individualbody parts in the eyes of theirsculptors, and Gravettiantechnocomplex," an entitycovering almost the establishedelements of the style.Paleolithic animal all of Europe fromFrance to Russia. Such unitymay be figurinesequally tend to have shortlegs comparedwith suggested,but McDermott's claim that it is generally their bodies, and we do not expect animals to be self- accepted on the basis of the stone tool technologyis observingsculptors. highlycontentious to 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 argue at the same time temptedto ask why then "Pavlovian" has remained a against the presence of male representationsduring the relativelyobscure term for those workingat the western Gravettianor to reduce their number to one. On the end of the continuum).A numberof hypothesesabout

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 264 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April 1996

the relationshipbetween the earlierAurignacian and 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 technocomplexsketchy at 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 slightlystrained neck, despitemany (see, e.g.,Leonova I994 foran argumentagainst homoge- years of yoga practice. neity). One may always arguefor some "generalsimilarities" that span over io,ooo years in a discussion of larger RANDALL WHITE evolutionarytrends. However, to argue for the same Departmentof Anthropology,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 archaeological interpretationare as badly controlof theirreproductive functions may have consti- in need offresh air as thatsurrounding Upper Paleolithic 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 that plague the sec- whom?) that could fit an evolutionaryscenario, taking ondaryliterature on the subject, and, unlike many re- place forover io,ooo years-the estimatedtime span for cent writerson the subject,he has actually examined a 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 problematicalfrom both an empiri- Dermott does not even hint at the connectionbetween cal and a theoreticalperspective. representationand "femininecontrol over 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 archaeologicalevidence from Aurignacian sites in Central Europe (Hohlenstein-Stadel,Germany, and Stratzing,Austria), as well as the Frenchsite Brassem- 4,74~4 pouy, clearly shows that relativelysophisticated repre- sentationsof humans were made at an earliertime, sug- gestingthat claims of "originsof art" are slightlyout of place forthe more recent Gravettianperiod. Moreover, IM the possibilityof an older traditionof artisticimages on perishable materials (e.g., wood, leather, drawing in sand, or body painting)should not be discounted.The animal figurinesfrom the 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 ofanything but also refuteMcDermott's suggestion that if "if PKG-styleimages of the human figurewere created and disseminated by women, it is possible that PKG- styleand Aurignaciansculptures of animals, which em- ploy similar materials and techniques,were createdby women." Even if we accept the possibilitythat some 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,for example, at Dolni Vestonice (as well as Pavlov) the majorityof the figu- rineswere animals,with only a fractionof human repre- sentations.This fact is then leftbehind forthe sake of the interpretationof the human images and the general FIG. I. The so-called playing card fromLaussel, hypothesisof self-representation.Ifwomen were indeed France,probably a kneelingfemale figurewith lightly creating the figurinesas a means of communicating engravedaqueous reflection(photo A. Roussot).

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 265

,WwR:%

00A

FiG. 2 . The "brownivory figurine" (left) and the "flattenedfigurine" (right) from Grimaldi. Both exhibithigh luster and means of suspension (furrowand perforationrespectively) (photos R. White).

A problemat the outset is that McDermott seems to lar conventionalized "distortions." Unless we accept underestimatethe intellectual and observationalabili- that the horses and rhinoceroses contemporarywith ties of Upper Paleolithic humans. The propositionof much of the female statuarywere sculptingor painting self-viewingrepresentation is foundedin large measure images of themselves,we cannot attribute"distortions" on the presumedabsence of technologicalmeans of self- to self-viewingrepresentation. The giving of greater viewing (i.e., mirrors).However, a tellingartifact in this symbolic and representationalpriority to 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 McDermott makes an errorin presuming sents a kneelingwoman and her aqueous reflection(fig. the dominance of the visual domain in earlyUpper Pa- I). If this interpretationis 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 focused veryheavily earlyUpper Paleolithic people. People were almost cer- on the totallyignored tactile qualities of these objects, tainlyable to combine theirown distortedreflections in the technologicalmeans (polishes,glazes) by which par- still water with theirdaily observationsof otherpeople ticularsurface textures were achieved,and the textures to produce an 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 possibilitysupported by care- conventionbased in differentialemphasis on anatomical fully buried figurinesand fragmentsat sites like Av- features.However, if in factthese "distortions"emerge deevo. fromself-inspection, they should be evidentonly in hu- Large numbers of figurines show perforationsor man imagery.But a quick glance at the 32,ooo-year-old carved furrowsto permitsuspension (fig.2). If this im- Vogelherd animal figurines(foreshortened limbs, ab- plies that theywere worn as pendantsor amulets (other sence of tails) or the 3i,ooo-year-oldpainted rhinocer- contexts of suspension are certainlyimaginable), their oses fromGrotte Chauvet (pointedlimbs) reveals simi- tactile qualities become highlyimportant. They would

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 266 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

have been constantlyavailable to be experiencedby the fingers.In this context,emphasis on anatomicalfeatures germaneto pregnancyand minimizationof nonrelevant featuresmake greatsense. The factthat more 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 furrowthat follows the vertebralcolumn in humans is almost always indi- Az cated by the sculptor,although entirely invisible to self- inspection.However, the figurinesdiffer greatly in their visibility,largely as a result of 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 Paleolithic figurinesrange from 2 cm to 30 cm in

|||-4U, length. McDermott repeats many of the stereotypicdescrip- tions of female figurines.For example, he emphasizes bowed heads, while this featureexists in fewerthan one in five specimens. The verydescription "bowed heads" would seem to implythat the figurinesare to be read as standingfigures. That this may not be the case is illus- tratedby the Kostienki i figurinepresented in figure4. Viewed in a lyingposition, this figurinemay reasonably be interpretedas a woman strainingto give birth.In- deed,if many of the figurineswere intendedto represent lyingfigures, this would account forfrequent flattening 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) serpentinefigurine from practicesare involvedin the contextof figurine Grimaldi,Italy (photo R. White). produc-

FIG. 4. Statuettenumber 3, in ivory,from Kostienki i, Russia, shown here lyingon its back (photo R. White).

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines 2672

tion and use. Indeed,Bisson and I have recentlyproposed incorporatesize errorsremarkably similar to those ob- that many figurinesmay have served not to enhance servedin PKG-styleimages.' fertilitybut to protect women during pregnancyand Althoughone most oftenencounters body-image dis- childbirth(Bisson and White i996). However,we need to tortionsin relationto eating disorderssuch as anorexia be carefulnot to replace masculist ideologyin figurine nervosa (Slade and Russell I973), healthy individuals interpretationwith functionalist,obstetric interpreta- also estimatebody size differentlyand significantlyless tions saturatedwith the vocabularyand values of late- accurately than nonbody objects (Tiemersma I989). 2oth-centuryAmerican feminism(e.g., "self-conscious Even more important,these errorsreveal consistentpat- femininecontrol over the material conditionsof their terns of over- and underestimationlinked to the geo- reproductivelives"; see also White i986b). graphical location 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 (that only they could have possessed) the navel to the feetand fromthe crotchto the feetalso oftheir own bodies onto sculptedrepresentations indeed tend to be underestimated(Nash i969). The fact that buttressesthe notion of figurineproduction by women, multiple studies reveal a generaltrend to overestimate even if one does not buy the whole autogenousobstetric the size of the upper body and to underestimatethose package. Second, McDermottis rightin underliningthe of lower bodyareas (Fisheri986:I79) seems particularly quasi-absenceof male figurinesin the earlyUpper Paleo- relevantto understandingthe originof the lozenge com- lithic sample (see also White i996a). Finally and re- position. freshingly,following Duhard, he distinguishesthe early It is interestingthat errors in body-size estimates Upper Paleolithic figurinesample fromthat of the late are largelyunaffected by body postures(e.g., sitting ver- 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-reliefallegedly from the use ofa mirrorby subjectsreduced but did not elimi- La Mouthe should probablybe expungedfrom the sam- nate the typical body-orientedsize judgment pattern ple, as it is almost certainlya moderndeception (White (Shontz i969). In fact,body-size judgments are not ap- I992b). preciablyinfluenced by a host ofuncertainties about 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 theirbody size more than other women (Slade I977: I75). Hester's observation(I 970) thatthe upperarm is usually LE ROY MC DERMOTT underestimatedis of interestprecisely because it runs Warrensburg,Mo., U.S.A. 27 XI 95 counterto the generaltrend. It indicates that the mod- ern body schema can be highlyspecific in the way in My decision to presentthe autogenoushypothesis with- which it incorporatesdifferent body parts. Bisson, Du- out a discussion of the interdisciplinarycontext from 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, overly rigid assumptions about how self-generatedvi- being so close to the head, absent or atrophied?"Pre- sual informationfunctioned in the fabricationof PKG- sumably, the arms and hands, being close to the eyes styleimages. I have concentratedon the formand content like the breasts,should be similarlylarge or of normal ofretinal information for the sake of clarityand because size. Our body schema, however,may employ different such observationscan be experimentallyreplicated. My strategiesto encode differentbody parts. 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 considerablestability over time (Fisher visual informationderived primarily from the physical I986:I66): point of view of selfbut that othersensory domains and The one exceptioninvolved judgments of hand cognitiveprocesses also undoubtedlyplayed a role (see length.Although errors of estimationof hand length n. 5). Pavlovian, Kostenkian, and Gravettianwomen would not have been requiredto stand naked forhours i. The 2oth century'sinterest in how humanbeings encode their attemptingto capturethe foreshortenedmasses of their individualphysical existence emerged in responseto medicalob- servationsabout the phantom-limb phenomenon of amputees, the bodyin intractablematerials, because theyalso presum- unusual size distortionsexperienced by schizophrenicsand those ably had an internalizedbody image or schema of them- on drugs(macro- and microsomatognosia),and the neurological selves to consult. As Davis's comment about clothing deficitsof thosewho sufferbrain damage from disease or trauma. indicates,there is everyreason to believe thatthe ability Elkinsproperly recognizes that Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological to forma mental pictureof the bodyhad evolvedby this philosophyand the autogenoushypothesis share a pointof depar- turein pioneeringneurobiological and psychologicaldefinitions of time. This presumptionis especially relevantsince our body image and body schema (Head and Holmes i9ii, Schilder modern internalizedimage of physical self appears to I935, Tiemersmai989).

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 268 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

are reliable fromtrial to trialwithin a given testing inspection.Until we encounterpolished obsidian discs session, they are not reliable with a 2-week retestin- duringthe Neolithic of whose functionwe can be rea- terval.This is an intriguingfinding because the hand sonably certain,we have no evidence that the abilityto is so much in use, and one mightexpect it to be per- see light reflectedfrom a two-dimensionalsurface as a ceived with unusual accuracy and stability.Shontz coherent image had been mastered. That we are sur- (i969) speculated that it is preciselybecause the roundedby myriad highly reflective surfaces made 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. Without the technologyto supportthe ratherthan narrow"cognitive boundaries." practicethere would have been farless experiencewith reflectedimages than today,and an appreciationof their We must recognizethat the arms and hands do not pro- potentialin a few properlyilluminated natural pools of duce any one singlecharacteristic retinal image. In some still water could have been virtuallynonexistent.2 If wa- positions the eye receives a much "thinner,"foreshort- ter mirrorswere used, why are therevirtually no repre- ened image of the arm than manyrealize. A simple opti- sentationsof faces? Nor can we give much weightto the cal principletells us that this must be so, and modern identificationof an engravingfrom Laussel as a kneeling body-schemaresearch suggests that middle Upper Paleo- woman and her aqueous reflection;this inherentlyam- lithic artists may have chosen this experience as the biguous one-of-a-kindimage has with equal conviction basis fortheir representation. Of course,if self-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-style images, representationof mythicJanus-like figure (Coppens i989). the hands and arms is doubly conflictedby theirbeing The autogenous hypothesisconfronts us with basic both model and instrumentof fabrication. issues about how cultureinteracts with perception.As Instructorsin beginningart classes routinelyobserve forDobres's concern about my neglect of the "cultural thatstudents drawing the human bodyhave the greatest lens throughwhich all seeing is accomplished," I can difficultyin masteringthe correctdetail and proportions onlypoint out thatthis was 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-stylefemale figu- simply eliminatingthem fromthe composition.When rines is that of self or other-is not dependentupon the feetare attempted,the most common erroris to render operationof any culturalfactors other than those which them too small. Readers may be surprisedto discover limit what we can learn to see. A similar responsecan thattheir feet are equal in lengthto theirforearms from be made to Duhard; our image of selfmay be interpreted elbow to wrist.The most commonproblem in beginning by the occipital centersof the brain,where retinaldis- drawing is "to shrink the extremitiesof the figure" tortionsare filteredout by the objectivestandards of our (George Sample, personal communication,November culture,but the physicalproperties of 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 contentof the retinalim- Many expressa more generalpuzzlement about why age, the Mach drawingpresented by Elkins is 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 photographsrather than fromdirect self-inspection.It weakness of the evidence or argumentI presentthan to would appear fromdrawings such as Mach's that the the assumptionthat a technologicallyunmediated view modern camera lens actually eliminates some of the of one's own body is a "distortion."To thinkin these diminutionnaturally present in the retinalimage. The termspresupposes a cultural standardbased on the ob- explanationlies in the historyof Western image making. jective appearance of otherhuman beings the existence The camera lens evolved not so much to capturevisual of which duringthe middle Upper Paleolithic cannotbe 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 thatother cultural factors did not partici- forour self-inspectiontasks to discountthe evidence of pate in the developmentand spread of PKG-styleim- artifactsindicating that they were created from the ages. Once discoveredor transcribed,atrophied arms, for pointof view of self.The attributesof the figurines must example, would become, in Davis's words, "a pictorial be givenpriority over logic-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 White arguesthat the use abilityto recognizereflected images in laboratoryand domestic of water as a mirroris inconsistentwith the emergence situations.Animals do not makemirrors, and neither,as faras we of a traditionof representationbased upon visual self- know,did men and womenduring the Upper Paleolithic.

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1269

conventionavailable forreproduction, revision, and ma- ances. Thinning or taperingupper and lower body ele- nipulation" without necessary involvement of either ments may actually have 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 alreadylearned about the culturallife ofvisual some mention pieces they think are inconsistentwith forms.Identifying what viewpoint artiststook to their eitherthe centraltendency of PKG-styleimages or the primarysubject in no way eliminatesthe probablecon- contentof self-generatedvisual information.I omit the tributionof more traditionalvehicles of stylisticpropa- Mal'ta and Buret' Siberian specimens from consider- gation. Indeed, representationalconventions originally ation because they are on another continent and, as developedto createhuman figuresare the logical source Delporte reiterates,belong to a differentstylistic group. wheneversimilar stylisticelements are encounteredin Distance in styleand time explains my "failure"to dis- animal images. cuss threeCentral European figuresdated to the earlier The presence of attributesinvisible to the self does Aurignacian.I did considerthe "maleness" of the poorly not necessarily run counter to a tradition of self- preservedpiece from Hohlenstein-Stadel,and Hahn's representation.White rightlycalls attentionto the im- commentshighlight its problematicnature. This piece portantrole played by tactile qualities, particularlyin was in such a fragmentarycondition when found that the choice ofmaterials and in the technicalrefinements decades passed beforeit was identifiedas a human fig- ofsurface finish. Indeed, we should expecttactile as well ure, and its restorationrenders any extrapolationfrom as proprioceptiveand kinestheticknowledge to be repre- its attributestenuous at best. The identificationof the sented if these pieces are self-portraits.The Monpazier "Dancing Venus ofGalgenberg" and the "orant" ofGeis- piece (Marshack's fig. 4) is particularlysuggestive in senklosterleas images of humans is reasonable but by this. The weight of a pregnant abdomen changes a no means certain,particularly given their poor preserva- woman's centerof gravity and contributesto lowerback tion. Were these two pieces not archaeologicallydated pain among expectantmothers. In this piece I thinkthe to the Aurignacian,there would be little formalreason exaggeratedsway of the lower back and protrudingbut- to perceivethem as related.Marshack does make a con- tocks,formed as theyare by the evocativeshape "found" vincingcase fora generalsimilarity in the raised or ex- in a natural pebble, 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 threehighly vari- thetic informationmay also be seen in its large oval able images of the human figurefrom the Aurignacian vulva (Marshack's fig. 5). Duhard (I987) has demon- presentsno particulardifficulty to the notion of subse- stratedthat the physiologicalchanges of the birthcanal quent emergenceof an integratedtradition of representa- duringdelivery are accuratelyrendered by this feature, tion in the later Pavlovian, Kostenkian,and Gravettian and I see no reason that it could not representthe "feel- cultures.Perhaps effortsto representthe human figure ings" of the woman who experiencedthis process. The in the Aurignacianwere supersededby 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 Geissenklosterlefigures differs from the pieces are radicallydifferent from the point of view of static quality of PKG-styleposes. Could this be a mani- the other. festationof the "rigid"concentration some thinkwould While I agree with Marshack and Svoboda that the be requiredby the fixedpoints of view inherentin visual pragmaticsof technique and materialexert an influence self-inspection? on the design of sculpture,there is no necessarystruc- In any genuine stylisticcluster there will always be tural reason for PKG 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 factorspertinent to 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 these we must add even normal-sizedones? The same responsecan be made those associated with the internaldevelopment of the to Marshack's suggestionthat the lozenge composition PKG style.Because of the multipleviewpoints required may reflectthe requirementsof carving.Rendering the for visual self-inspection,representational advances upper and lower body as thickerand blunterthan nor- should tendto be localized withinthe boundariesof one mal is also a plausible strategyfor eliminating breakage or more of these views. One logical conjectureis that and such a design solution is perhapspreserved in the the earliestautogenous images involvedregions close to thickened lower extremities of 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- proportionof missingfeet and heads in the corpus,indi- chaic" quality associated with formativeperiods in sty- catingthat the lozenge compositionwas no solution to listic traditions.Even the use of clay as a medium is the problem of carvingappendages and otherprotuber- germaneto such a possibility.Because of the speed of

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 270 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume37, Number2, AprilI996

tonice no. I4 (fig. I2, a), usually describedas a highly stylizedfemale figurineconsisting of pendulous breasts attachedto an abstractrod representingthe body,is ob- servedfrom above, the foreshortenedrounded lower end can be centeredbetween the 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 breasts as if-the entire course of preg- nancy were being represented.This latter possibility adds an intriguingtemporal dimension to 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,realistic ren- dering of the upper frontalbody identical with those foundin more complete and laterPKG-style images. 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 of bilobed pendantbeads, bear such a strong resemblanceto the breastsand upperconical appendage of Dolni Vestonice no. I4 and are verysimilar to these elements of the figurinefrom Savignano (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,they are almost identicalwith the Dolni Vestonice no. I2 beads (fig. I2, c). That the origin of PKG-style breasts is to be found among Aurignacian body ornamentsis supportedby two lines of evidence. FI G. I12. So-calledhyperstylized Venus no. 14 (a), (b) one ofthe bilobed pendant beads collectivelyknown First,red deer canines and the breastsof PKG-styleim- ages are very similar in shape, and both lack nipples. as Venusno. 12 fromDolni Vestonice(Pavlovian), I and (c) two "mammiform"red deercanines The reason is self-evidentfor the formerbut farless so suspendedin hypothesizedsimilar bilobed fashion for the latter. Second, Bisson and White observe that (Aurignacian). some figurinesare perforatedfor suspension as body or- naments,and while theirpresumed location on the up- execution and ease of correctionit affords,its earlyuse per frontalsurface of the body (eithersewn to clothing at Pavlovian sites suggestsan exploratorymilieu from or suspended from the 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,wearing a bilobed or face-on observationinconsistent with the autogenous double breast pendant bead reproducesthe perspective principle (see my fig. i, g) I see as early attentionto fromwhich a woman views her own breasts. representingthe upper frontalsurface of the body-the Finally,not all variationsencountered in middle Up- firstregion encountered when 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 conceptual aspect of a flattenedgeometric cone, and no available to be observed,although the often-mentioned attemptwas made to renderthe buttocks. fragmentfrom Petrkovicein Moravia is the only un- Additionalevidence that awareness of the upperfron- equivocal example that can be cited. It is not until the tal surfaceof the femalebody led 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-calledVenuses nos. I aand I 4, whichCook the autogenous hypothesis,few challenge the evidence also sees as inconsistentwith my theory.If Dolni Ves- I presentthat these images forma coherentstyle. I con-

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 27I

FIG. I 3. The "upper body" of Dolni Vestoniceno. 14 as seen fromabove (froma replica by the author); compare with the same view of Willendorfno. I (fig.5,b).

tinue to think it highlysignificant that the firstrepre- Identifyingwhere the artiststood when creatinga rep- sentations of the human body to spread the length of resentationalwork does not tell us what it meant to Upper Paleolithic Europe involve a distinctiveset of an- 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 essentiallyarbitrary consequence able to consider.Even if PKG-styleimages embodyreal- of symbolic or psychologicallymediated activity(Du- istic informationof practical benefitto women's lives, hard I995). Yet such interpretationstypically fail to con- this does not preclude theirfunctioning in any number sider all 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 carvedafter the ba- elevated posteriors? Proprioceptive and kinesthetic sic anatomy,seem verymuch in keepingwith such pos- pathwayscould easily be involved,for there is an inevi- sibilities.3The criticalrole of associated contextualand table tendencyto elevate the buttockstoward the eyes empiricalattributes in futurestudies is certainlynot di- wheneverone attemptstheir visual inspection.Further- minishedeither; I was unaware thatI had suggestedoth- more, the glutei medii are typicallyfar larger than the erwise.The autogenoushypothesis does affectour inter- buttocksproper and are oftenmistaken forthem, pro- pretationof the attributesof the figurines.Insofar as ducing the upside-down configurationencountered at the observedanatomical omissions and distortionsare Lespugueand certainother sites (Luquet I934). Here the consistentwith self-inspectionand the internalizedop- furrowof the lower spine between the enlargedglutei erationof human memoryor body schema, theycannot medii is mistakenfor the gluteal cleavage 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 Kostenki no. i in a supine position could account forsome flattening ReferencesCited or lateral displacementof tissue (White'sfig. 4), it could not elevate the inferiorterminal margin of that region ABRAMOVA, Z. A. I960. Elementsof dressand adornmenton to the level of the navel. Nor is it likely that a supine carvedhuman figures from the UpperPaleolithic in Europe birthingposition is indicated,since this became wide- and Siberia.Materialy i Issedovaniepo ArkheologiiSSR spread only with the advent of modernEuropean medi- 79:I26-40. [AM] cal practices. During the Upper Paleolithic a standing, kneeling,or squattingposition would have been more 3. The Lespuguepiece preservesat least one exampleof a waist- likely (WitkowskiI889). bandoccluded by the body.

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 272 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

. I967a. L'artmobilier pal6olithique en URSS. Quartar Human bioculturalchange in the UpperPleistocene. Edited by I8:99-125. E. Trinkaus,pp. 201-27. BritishArchaeological Reports Interna- . I967b. Palaeolithicart in the U.S.S.R. ArcticAnthropol- tionalSeries I64. ogy 17:1-179. . I985. "Ritualcommunication, social elaboration,and the .1995. L'artpaleolithique d'Europe orientale et Siberie. variabletrajectories of Paleolithicmaterial culture," in Prehis- Grenoble:J6r6me Million. [PGB] torichunter-gatherers: The emergenceof culturalcomplexity. AB SOLO N, K. I939. "Nouvellesd6couvertes de statuettesmode- Editedby T. Douglas Priceand JamesA. Brown,pp. 299-323. l6es dans l'aurignaciende Moravie,"in M6langesde pr6histoire New York:Academic Press. et d'anthropologieofferts au Prof.Comte H. Begouen,pp. . I987. New approachesin the searchfor meaning? A re- 249-55. Toulouse. view ofresearch in Paleolithicart. Journal of Field Archaeol- . I949. The diluvialanthropomorphic statuettes and draw- ogyI4:4I3-30. ings,especially the so-calledVenus statuettes, discovered in COOK, j. n.d. "Mistakenabout Eve?" in Womenin industryand Moravia.Artibus Asiae 12:2oi-2o. technology:Current research and themuseum experience. Ed- ANDERSON, RICHARD. 1979. Artin primitivesocieties. Engle- ited by B. Wood.London: Museum of London. [jc] wood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall. [MAD] C*O P P E N S, M. Y. I 989 . L'ambiguitedes doublesVenus du BAHN, P. G. I986. No sex,please, we're . Rock Art Gravettiende France.Comptes Rendus des Seances de l'Acade- Research3:99-I20. [PGB] mie des Inscriptionset Belles-Lettres,July-December, pp. . I993. "The 'dead wood stage'of studies: 566-7I. Styleis not enough,"in Rock artstudies: The post-stylistic DAMISCH, HUBERT. I994. The originof perspective. Translated era,or Wheredo we go fromhere? Edited by M. Lorblanchet by JohnGoodman. Cambridge: MIT Press.[WD] and P. G. Bahn,pp. I -59. Oxbow Monograph35. [PGB] DAVIS, WHITNEY. I989. The canonicaltradition in ancient BAHN, P. G., AND J. VERTUT. I988. Images of theIce Age. Egyptianart. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [WD] New York:Facts on File. . I994. The subjectin the scene ofrepresentation. Art Bul- BARTON, G. A. 1940. The Palaeolithicbeginnings of religion: letin 76:570-75. [WD] An interpretation.Proceedings of theAmerican Philosophical DE LAURETIS, THERESA. I987. Technologiesof gender: Essays Society82:13 1-49. on theory,film, and fiction.Bloomington: Indiana University BEGOUEN, H. Ig29a. A proposde l'idee f6condit6dans l'icono- Press. [MAD] graphie prehistorique.Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Fran- DELPORTE, H. 1960. Une nouvellestatuette pal6olithique: La qaise 26:197-99. V6nusde Tursac.L'Anthropologie 63:233-47. . i929b. The magicorigin of prehistoric art. Antiquity . i982. Surun rognonde silex,en formde statuettef6mi- 3:5-19. nine,provenant du gisementdu Pr6-des-Forgesa Marsangy BISSON, M. S., AND P. BOLDUC. 1994. Previously undescribed (Yvonne).Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique Fran,aise figurinesfrom the Grimaldi Caves. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 79:.275-78. [AM] 35:458-68. [MSB] . I993a. New edition.L'image de la femmedans l'artpre- BISSON, M. S., N. TISNERAT, AND R. WHITE. I996. Radiocar- historiques.Paris: Picard. bon dates from the Upper Paleolithic of the Barma Grande, Li- . I993b. "Gravettianfemale figurines: A regionalsurvey," guria,Italy. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 37:I56-62. [MSB] in BeforeLascaux: The complexrecord of the earlyUpper Pa- BISSON, M. S., AND R. WHITE. I996. Femaleimagery from the leolithic.Edited by H. 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. Cahiers du Quaternairei9. 5I:5I-64. D 'ERRICO, F.1I989. Palaeolithic lunar calendars: A case of wish- BOSINSKI, G., AND G. FISHER. I974. Die Menschendarstel- fulthinking? CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:II7-I8. lungenvon Gonnersdorfder Ausgrabung von I968. Wiesbaden: DICKSON, D. BRUCE. I990. The dawn of belief:Religion in the Franz Steiner Verlag. UpperPaleolithic of southwestern Europe. Tucson: University BOZZI, v. I988. The bodyin question. Psychology Today ofArizona Press. 22(2): I0. DOBRES, M-A. i992a. Re-presentationsof Palaeolithicvisual im- BREUIL, H. I95.2. Fourhundred centuries of cave art.Montig- agery:Simulacra and theiralternatives. Kroeber Anthropologi- nac: Centre d'Etudes et de Documentation Prehistoriques. cal SocietyPapers 73-74: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. inspiredre-analysis," in Ancientimages, ancient thought: The BROOKE-ROSE, CHRISTINE. I986. "Woman as semiotic object," archaeologyof ideology. Edited by A. S. Goldsmith,S. Garvie, in The femalebody in Westernculture. Edited by S. R. Sulei- D. Selin,and J.Smith, pp. 245-62. Calgary:University of Cal- man, pp. 305-I6. Cambridge:Harvard University Press. [MAD] garyArchaeological Association. BURKITT, M. C. I934. Some reflectionson the Aurignacian cul- . n.d. "Venus figurines,"in Oxfordcompanion to archaeol- ture and its female statuettes. Eurasia SeptentrionalisAntiqua ogy.Edited by B. Fagan.New York:Oxford University Press. In 9:II3-22. press. [MAD] CHAUVET, JEAN-MARIE, BRUNEL DESCHAMPS, ELIETTE DUHARD, j-P. I987a. EdouardPiette avait raison:La "figurinea HILAIRE, AND CHRISTIAN HILAIRE. I995. La grotte la ceinture"de Brassempouyest bien un homme.Bulletin Chauveta VallonPont-D'Arc. Paris: Seuil. [JH] S.A.S.O. 22: 207-I-2. [JPD] CLOTTES, J. I97I. La decouverted'une statuettefeminine paleo- . I987b. La statuettede Monpazierrepr6sente-t-elle une lithiquea Monpazier(Dordogne). Prehistoire Ariegeoise parturiente?Prehistoire Ariegeoise 42: I 5 5-63. [AM] 26:77-82. [AM] . I988. Peut-onparler d'obesit6 chez les femmesfigurees CLOTTES, J., AND E. CEROU. I970. La statuettef6minine de dans les oeuvrespari6tales et mobilierespaleolithiques? Prehis- Monpazier(Dordogne). Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique toireAriegeoise 43:85-I03. Franqaise 67:435-44. . i989a. Le r6alisme physiologique des figurationsf6mi- CLOTTES, JEAN, ET AL. I995. Dates radiocarbonepour la grotte nines sculpteesdu Pal6olithiquesup6rieur en France.Ph.D. Chauvet-Pont-D'Arc. International Newsletter on Rock Art diss.,University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. [JPD] II:I-2. [JH] I989b. La gestuelledu membresuperieur dans les figura- COLLINS, D., AND J. ONIANS. I978. The origins of art. Art His- tionsf6minines sculptees paleolithiques. Rock Art Research toryI:I-25. 6:I05-I7. [JPD] CONKEY, M. W. I983. "On the origins of Paleolithicart: A re- . iggoa. Le corpsfeminin et son langagedans l'artpal6o- view and some critical thoughts," in The Mousterian legacy: lithique. OxfordJournal of Archaeology 9:24I-S S * [JC,JPD]

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 273

i1ggob. "Peut-on parler d'un langagedu corpsdans les . I989b. The typologyof female figurines of the Kostenki figurationsfeminines pal6olithiques?" in Actes du Colloque Paleolithicculture. Soviet Anthropology and Archeology surles Origineset l'Evolutiondu LangageHumain, Societe 27:32-94. d'Etudeset de RecherchesPrehistoriques des Eyzies,I989, pp. .I 995. Artof themammoth hunters: The findsfrom Av- II3-28. Bulletin 39. [JPD] deevo. Oxbow Monograph49. [PGB] Ii99Ia. The shape of Pleistocenewomen. 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'apr6s le HAHN, J. 197I. La statuettemasculine de la grottedu Hoh- modelefrancais). BulletinS.A.S.O. 26:33-42. [JPD] lenstein-Stadel(Wurtemmberg). L'Anthropologie 75:233-44. . 1993a. UpperPaleolithic figures as a reflectionof human , I986. Kraftund Aggression.Archaeologica Venatoria 7. morphologyand social organization.Antiquity 67:83-91. [JH] 1993b. Realismede l'imagefeminine paleolithique. Ca- .1993. "Aurignacianart in CentralEurope," in BeforeLas- hiersdu QuaternaireI9. caux: The complexrecord of the earlyUpper Paleolithic. Ed- . 1993c. Etudecomparative des statuettesf6minines de Sir- ited by H. Knecht,A. Pike-Tay,and R. White,pp. 229-41. euil et Tursac (Dordogne).Gallia Prehistoire35:283-91. [Jc] Boca Raton:CRC Press. 1 994. L'identitephysiologique, un elementd'interpreta- HAHN, J., W. VON KOENIGSWALD, E. WAGNER, AND W. WIL- tiondes figurationsfeminines paleolithiques. Trabajos de Pre- LIE. 1977. Das Geissenklosterlede Blaubeuren,ald-Donau- historia5SI. [JPD] Kreiseine altsteinzeitlicheHohlenstation der mittleren alb. . I995. De la confusionentre morphologie et g6om6trie Fundberichteaus Baden-Wiirttemberg,vol. 3, Fossilverge- dans les figurationsf6minines gravettiennes et du suppos6 sellschaflungen,no. 49, pp. 14-37. Stuttgart:E. Schweizer- stylegravettien. Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique Fran,aise. bart'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung. In press.[PGB, JC, JPD] HANCAR, F. 1939-40. Zum problemder Venusstatueten im eu- EATON, R. L. 1978. The evolutionof trophyhunting. Carnivore rasiatischenJungpalaolithikum. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 30- I|I): IIO-I.21 3i:85-i56. . 1979. Meditationson the originof trophyism. Carnivore HARDING, J. R. 1976. CertainUpper Palaolithic "Venus" statu- 2(I): 6-8. ettesconsidered in relationto thepathological condition ELKINS, J. 1994. The poeticsof perspective. Ithaca: Cornell Uni- knownas massivehypertrophy of the breasts.Man 11:271-72. versityPress. [JE] HEAD, H., AND G. HOLMES. I9II. Sensorydisturbances from FEUSTEL, R. I967. Statuettesf6minines pal6olithiques de la R6- cerebrallesions. Brain 34:102-254. publiqueDemocratique Allemande. Bulletin de la SocietePre- HESTER, G. A. 1970. Effectsof active movement on body-partes- historiqueFran,aise 67:I2-I6. timates.Perceptual and MotorSkills 30:607-13. FISHER, S. I986. The developmentand structureof the bodyim- JELINEK, J. 1975. The pictorialencyclopedia of the evolutionof age. Hillsdale,N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. man. London:Hamlyn. FORGE, ANTHONY. 1970. "Learningto see in New Guinea,"in .I988. Considerations sur l'art paleolithique mobilier. Socialization:The approachfrom social anthropology.Edited L'Anthropologie92:203-38. by P. Mayer,pp. 269-9i. London:Tavistock. [MAD] K L I M A, B. I989. "FigurlichePlastiken aus derpalaolithischen FOUCAULT, MICHEL. 1975. The birthof the clinic: An archaeol- Siedlungvon Pavlov,"in Religionund Kult,pp. 8I-90. Berlin: ogyof medical perception. London: Tavistock. [MAD] DeutscheVerlag der Wissenschaften. [JS] GAMBLE, C. I98 2. Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic soci- KNIGHT, C. I99I. Blood relations:Menstruation and the origins ety.Man 17:92-107. of culture.New Haven and London:Yale UniversityPress. [Jc] . I983. "Culture and society in the Upper Palaeolithic of KNIGHT, C., C. POWER, AND I. WATTS. I995. The humansym- Europe,"in Hunter-gatherereconomy in prehistory:A Euro- bolic revolution:A Darwinianaccount. Cambridge Archaeolog- pean perspective.Edited by G. Bailey,pp. 2oI-II. Cambridge: ical Journal5(I):75-114. [Jc] CambridgeUniversity Press. KUHN, H. 1936. Menschendarstellungenim Palaolithikum. . I986. The Palaeolithicsettlement of Europe. Cambridge: Zeitschriftfar Rassenkunde 4:225-47. CambridgeUniversity Press. LACAN, JACQUES. 1977. "The mirrorstage as formativeof the GIEDION, S. i962. The eternalpresent: The beginningsof art. functionof the I as revealedin psychoanalyticexperience BollingenSeries 35-6-I. New York:Pantheon Books. ['9491,"in Ecrits:A selection.Translated by Alan Sheridan, GIMBUTAS, M. I98I. "Vulvas,breasts, and buttocksof the god- pp. 1-7. New York: Norton. [WD] dess creatress:Commentary on the originsof art," in The LALANNE, J. G. i9i2. Bas reliefs a 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'Anthropologie50:117-63. GOLDMAN, B. I960-63. Typologyof the mother-goddessfigu- LAQUER, THOMAS. I990. Makingsex: Body and genderfrom rines.fahrbuch fur Prahistorische und EthnographischeKunst the Greeksto Freud.Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 20: 8-I 5. [MAD] GOMEZ-TABANERA, J. M. 1978. Les statuettesfeminines paleo- LAYTON, R. i992. "Ethnographic analogy and the two archaeo- lithiquesdites "Venus" et leursignification dans le mondepre- logicalparadigms," in Ancientimages, ancient thought: The ar- 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: University of Calgary verteen Italie.Bulletin de 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 contributionde la zoologieet de 1'ethologiea AlbinMichel. l'interpretationde l'art des peupleschasseurs prehistoriques .I967. Treasuresof prehistoricart. New York: Harry N. (3e Colloque de la SocieteSuisse des SciencesHumaines). Ed- Abrams. [AM] itedby H-G. Bandi,W. Huber,M-R. Sauter,and B. Sitter,pp. . i968a. The artof prehistoric man in westernEurope. Lon- 35-73. Fribourg:Editions Universitaires. don: Thames and Hudson. GVOZDOVER, M. I989a. Ornamental decoration on artifactsof . I968b. The evolutionof Paleolithicart. Scientific Ameri- the Kostenkiculture. Soviet Anthropology and Archeology can 2i8(2):59-60. 27:8-31. .1971. Observations technologiques sur le rythmestatu-

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 274 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2, April I996

aire.Echanges et Communications,Melanges Levi-Strauss, pp. Eyzies (Dordogne):Stratigraphy. American School of Prehis- 658-76. [HD] toricResearch Bulletin 3'. . i982. The dawn ofEuropean art: An introductionto MUNMAN, ROBERT. I985. Optical correctionsin the sculpture Palaeolithiccave painting.Cambridge: Cambridge University ofDonatello. Transactionsof the AmericanPhilosophical Soci- Press. ety75(2). [JE] LEVY, G. R. 1948. The gate ofhorn: A studyof thereligious con- NASH, H. I969. The judgmentof bodylandmark heights. Ge- ceptionsof the StoneAge, theirinfluence upon European neticPsychology Monographs 79:2S I-96. thought.London: Faber and Faber. NELSON, S. M. I993. "Diversityof the UpperPaleolithic 'Venus' LEWIS-WILLIAMS, DAVID, AND THOMAS DOWSON. I988. figurinesand archeologicalmythology," in Genderin cross- The signsof all times:Entoptic phenomena in UpperPalaeo- culturalperspective. Edited by C. B. Brettelland C. F. Sargent. lithicart. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 29:20I-45. [MAD] EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall. LUQUET, G. H. I930. The art and religionof fossil man. New NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH, CHRISTINE. I988. Vorberichtuber Haven: Yale UniversityPress. die Rettungsgrabungenan der Aurignacien-Station Stratzing/ . I934. Les Venuspal6olithiques. Journal de Psychologie Krems-Rehbergin 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: Female vision in the EuropeanUpper Paleo- . I989. Zum Neufundeiner weiblichen Statuette bei den lithic.American Anthropologist. In press. Rettungsgrabungenan der der Aurignacien-Station Stratzing. MC DERMOTT, L. D. I985. Self-generatedinformation and repre- Germania67:55I-60. [HD] sentationof the humanfigure during the EuropeanUpper Pa- NEUMANN, E. 1953. The greatmother: An analysisof the arche- leolithic.Ph.D. diss.,University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans. type.Princeton: Princeton University Press. . I987. The double-breastpendant and the goddesswith NIEDHORN, U. I990. The lady fromBrassempouy: A fake-a threebreasts: Evidence for stylistic continuity between Paleo- hoax? IsernhagenerStudien zur friihenSkulptur 3. [PGB] lithicand earlyhistoric female representations. Paper pre- OTTE, M., AND L. H. KEELEY. I990. The impact of regionalism sentedto the I4th AnnualMeeting of the Midwest Art History on Palaeolithic studies. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 3I:577-82. Society,Ann Arbor,Mich., March 27. PALES, L., AND M. T. DE ST.-PEREUSE. I976. Les gravuresde . I988. The proportionsof Upper Paleolithic female figu- la Marche.2, Les humaines.Paris: Ophrys. rines:Obesity, or the structureof autogenous visual informa- PASSEMARD, L. I938. Les statuettesfeminines paleolithiques tion?Paper presented to the Symposiumon Culturaland Physi- dites Venussteatopyges. Nimes: ImprimerieCoop6rative "La ologicalAspects of Fatness and Obesityat the i2th Laborieuse." InternationalCongress of Anthropological and EthnologicalSci- PFEIFFER, J. E. i982. The creativeexplosion: An inquiryinto ences,Zagreb, Yugoslavia, July 26. the originsof art and religion.New York:Harper and Row. . I99I. Styleand gender:The attributesof Upper Paleo- PIETTE. E. I895. La stationde Brassempouyet les statuetteshu- lithichuman figures. Paper presented to the i8th AnnualMeet- mainsde la p6riodeglyptique. L'Anthropologie 6:i29-5I. ing of the MidwestArt History Society, University of Kansas, . i902. Gravuredu Mas d'Azil et statuettesde Menton. Lawrence,Kans., April 3-5. Bulletinset Memoiresde la Societed'Anthropologie de Paris, MACH, ERNST. i886. Beitragezur Analyzeder Empfindungen. Series 5, 3:77I-79. Jena:Gustav Fisher. [JE] POINTON, MARCIA. I990. Naked authority:The bodyin West- MACK, R. T. i992. "Genderedsite: Archaeology,representation, ernpainting I830-I908. Cambridge:Cambridge University and the femalebody," in Ancientimages, ancient thought: Press.[MAD] The archaeologyof ideology. Edited by A. S. Goldsmith,S. Gar- P O L L O C K, G R I S E L D A. I 9 87. "What'swrong with images of vie, D. Selin,and J.Smith, pp. .235-44. Calgary:University of women?"in Lookingon: Images offemininity in-the visual CalgaryArchaeological Association. artsand media. Editedby R. Betterton,pp. 40-48. New York: MARSHACK, A. I986. Une figurinede Grimaldi"redecouverte": Pandora.[MAD] Analyseet discussion.L'Anthropologie 90:807-I4. [AM] PRASLOV, N. D. I986. Neue Frauenstatuettendes 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'Anthropologie89:i8i-92. N.Y.: Moyer Bell. PUTNAM, j. I988. The searchfor modern humans. National . iggib. The femaleimage, a "time-factored"symbol: A GeographicI74:438-77. study in style and modes of image use in the European Upper RADMILLI, A. M. I966-69. The chronologicalposition of the Palaeolithic.Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society Venusesof Parabita.fahrbuch far Prdhistorische and Ethno- 57:I7-3I. graphischeKunst 22:io-i5. . I992. "The analyticalproblems of subjectivity in the REGNAULT, F. i9i2. Les repr6sentationsde l'obesitedans l'art makerand user,"in The limitationsof archaeologicalknowl- pr6historique.Bulletin de la Societed'Anthropologie de Paris, edge.Edited by T. Shayand J.Clottes, pp. I8I-2Io. Liege:Uni- Series 6, 3:35-39. versit6de Liege.[AM] . I924. Les representationsde femmesdans l'artpaleolith- . I994. Commenton: Symbolingand the Middle-Upper ique sont st6atomeres,non st6atopyges.Bulletin de la Societe Palaeolithictransition, by A. M. Byers.CURRENT ANTHROPOL- PrehistoriqueFran,aise 2I:84-88. OGY 35:386-87. [AM] REINACH, S. I898. Statuettede femmenue decouvertedans une MELLAART, J. I967. (QatalHiiyiik: A Neolithictown in 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. PrehistoricVenuses: Symbols of motherhood MELLARS, P. I989. Major issues in the emergenceof modern hu- or womanhood?Journal of Anthropological Research mans. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:349-85. 37:402-I4. MERLEAU-PONTY, MAURICE. i962. Phenomenologyof percep- ROSENFELD, A. I977. "Profile figures: Schematizationof the hu- tion. Translated by C. Smith. London: Routledge and Kegan man figurein the Magdalenian ," in Form in Paul. [JE] indigenousart: Schematizationin theart of Aboriginal Austra- I 993. The Merleau-Pontyreader: Philosophy and paint- lia and prehistoricEurope. Edited by P. J.Ucko, pp. 90-IIO. ing. Editedby Galen A. Johnson.Evanston: Northwestern Uni- Canberra:Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. versityPress. [JE] SACCASYN-DELLA SANTA, E. I947. Les figureshumaines du Pa- MOVIUS, H. L., JR. I977. Excavationsof theAbri Pataud, Les leolithiquesuperieur eurasiatique. Antwerp: De Sikkel.

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 MC DERMOTT Self-Representationin Female Figurines1 275

SAINT-PERIER, R. DE. i922. Statuette de femme st6atopygede- sis of experienceand its continuity.Princeton: Princeton Uni- couvertea Lespugue(Haute-Garonne). L'Anthropologie versityPress. [JEJ 32:36i-8i. UCKO, P. j. I968. Anthropomorphicfigurines of Predynastic SCHILDER, P. I935. The image and appearanceof thehuman Egyptand NeolithicCrete with comparative material from the body.New York:International Unversity Press. prehistoricNear East and mainland Greece.Royal Anthropo- SCHMID, E. I988. Statuetteeiner Frau mit dem Kopfeiner logicalInstitute Occasional Paper 24. Lowin. UlmerMuseum, Das Kunstwerkdes Monats (Ok- UCKO, P. J., AND A. ROSENFELD. I967. Paleolithiccave art. tober),no. II2, pp. I-2. New York:McGraw-Hill. . I989. Die altsteinzeitlicheElfenbeinstatuette aus der VANDIVER, P. B., 0. SOFFER, B. KLIMA, AND J. SVOBODA. Hohle Stadelim Hohlensteinbei Asselfingen,Alb-Donau- I989. The originsof ceramic technology at Dolni Vestonice, Kreis. Fundberichteaus Baden-WiirttembergI4:33-96. [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:Archaeological and ethno- SEMENOV, S. A. I964. Prehistorictechnology: An experimental logicalperspectives. Edited by C. Carrand J.Neitzel, pp. ioi- studyof the oldesttools and artefactsfrom traces of manufac- 22. New York:Plenum Press. [MAD] tureand wear.Bath: Adams and Dart. [AM] WHITE, R. i982. The manipulationand use of burinsin incision SHONTZ, F. C. I969. Perceptualand cognitiveaspects of body and notation.Canadian Journalof Anthropology a: I29-35. experience.New York:Academic Press. . I986. Dark caves, brightvisions: Life in Ice-AgeEurope. SLADE, P. D. I977. Awarenessof body dimensions during preg- New York:American Museum of Natural History. nancy: An analogue study. PsychologicalMedicine 7:245-52. . I989. Visual thinkingin the Ice Age. ScientificAmerican SLADE, O., AND G. F. M. RUSSELL. I973. Awareness of body di- .26I:9 2-99. mensionsin anorexianervosa. Psychological Medicine igg2a. Beyondart: Toward an understandingof the ori- 3:I88-99. ginsof material representation in Europe.Annual Reviewof SOFFER, 0. I985. The UpperPaleolithic of the RussianPlain. Anthropology2I:537-64. New York:Academic Press. . i992b. Une Venus probl6matique trouv6e au Minneapolis . I987. "UpperPaleolithic connubia, refugia, and the ar- Instituteof Arts, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Bulletinde la chaeologicalrecord from eastern Europe," in The Pleistocene SocietePrehistorique Frang9aise 89:.282-88. [RWJ Old World:Regional perspectives. Edited by 0. Soffer,pp. . Igg6a. "Substantialacts: Frommaterials to meaningin 333-48. New York: Plenum Press. UpperPaleolithic representation," in Beyondart: UpperPaleo- SOFFER, O., P. VANDIVER, B. KLIMA, AND J. SVOBODA. I993. lithicsymbolism. Edited by D. Stratmann,M. Conkey,and 0. "The pyrotechnologyof performanceart: Moravian Venuses Soffer.San Francisco:California Academy of Sciences.In press. and wolverines,"in BeforeLascaux: The complexrecord of the [RW] earlyUpper Paleolithic. Edited by H. Knecht,A. Pike-Tay,and . Igg6b. "Les imagesfeminines paleolithiques: Un coup R. White,pp. 259-75. Boca Raton:CRC Press. d'oeil sur quelquesperspectives americaines," in La dame de STONE. M. I976. WhenGod was a woman.New York: Dorset Brassempouy:Ses ancetres,ses contemporaines,ses heritieres. Press. Editedby H. Delporte.Liege: ERAUL. In press.[RWJ TARASSOV, L. M. I97I. La doublestatuette paleolithique de Ga- . I996c. Actesde substance:De la matiereau sens dans la garino. Quartar.22:I57-63. repr6sentationpal6olithique. Techne 3. In press.[RWJ TIEMERSMA, D. I989. Bodyschema and bodyimage: An inter- WITKOWSKI, G.-J. I889. Histoiredes accouchementschez tous disciplinaryand philosophicalstudy. Amsterdam: Swets and les peuples.Paris: G. Steinheil. Zeitlinger. Z CT Z, L. F. I95 5. Idolespal6olithiques de l'etreandrogyne. Bulle- TRIMPI, WESLEY, I983. Muses of one mind: The literaryanaly- tin de la SocietePrehistorique Frangaise 48:333-40.

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