220 CHAPTER 9 | The Global Expansion of Homo sapiens and Their Technology
artists as an expression of spiritual beliefs related to hunt-
ing activities. She emphasizes that many reconstructions
of behavior in the past rely upon contemporary gender
norms to fill in blanks left in the archaeological record.
In other words, she is interested in the role of gender to-
day in shaping the reconstruction of gender in the past. In
the archaeological research she conducts, she seeks clues
about gender in the deep past, evidence that is not shaped
by gender stereotypes from the present.^37
In this regard it is interesting to note that contempo-
rary scientists describe Venus figurines largely in sexual
terms rather than in terms of fertility and birth. For ex-
ample, in a commentary in the prestigious journal Nature
that accompanied the description of the the Hohle Fels
Cave Venus, British archaeologist Paul Mellars states: “The
figure is explicitly—and blatantly—that of a woman, with
an exaggeration of sexual characteristics (large, projecting
breasts, a greatly enlarged and explicit vulva, and bloated
belly and thighs) that by twenty-first-century standards
could be seen as bordering on the pornographic.”^38
Mellars’s reaction to the Venus figurine reflects con-
temporary attitudes toward the nude female form rather
than the intent of an ancient artist. Perhaps the artist was
a female, looking at her own pregnant form or remember-
ing the experience of giving birth. While the gender and
the intention of the artist behind the Venus figurine can-
not be known for sure, it is easy to imagine that pregnancy
and the birth process were at least as awe-inspiring to Pa-
leolithic peoples as were hunting experiences.
Human biology also provides us with some clues.
Breasts and belly enlarge during pregnancy; the tissues
around the vulva enlarge and stretch dramatically during
the birth process. Breasts swell further with milk after a
birth. Mellars’s interpretation of the artistic depiction of
these biological changes as “pornographic” derives from
the gender norms of his particular culture. Many contem-
porary peoples with different worldviews would not react
to the figurine in these terms.Other Aspects of Upper
Paleolithic Culture
Upper Paleolithic peoples lived not only in caves and rock
shelters but also in structures built out in the open. In
Ukraine, for example, the remains have been found of siz-
able settlements, in which huts were built on frameworksimages over older ones, as well as the same sort of fixation
on large, powerful animals instead of the ones most often
eaten. Thus the cave art of Europe may well represent the
same depictions of trance experiences, painted after the
fact. Consistent with this interpretation, the isolation of
the cave and the shimmering light on the cave walls them-
selves are conducive to the sort of sensory distortion that
can induce trance.
Ornamental Art
Artistic expression, whatever its purpose may have been,
was not confined to rock surfaces and portable objects. Up-
per Paleolithic peoples also ornamented their bodies with
necklaces of perforated animal teeth, shells, beads of bone,
stone, and ivory, as well as rings, bracelets, and anklets.
Clothing, too, was adorned with beads. Quite a lot of art
was probably also executed in more delicate materials such
as wood carving, painting on bark, and animal skins, which
have not been preserved. Thus the rarity or absence of Up-
per Paleolithic art in some parts of the inhabited world may
be due to the fact that some materials did not survive long
in the archaeological record, not that they did not exist.
Gender and Art
As seen in the chapter opener, the Upper Paleolithic also
includes numerous portrayals of voluptuous women with
body parts often described as exaggerated. Many appear
to be pregnant, and some are shown in birthing pos-
tures. These so-called Venus figures have been found at
sites from southwestern France to as far as Siberia. Made
of stone, ivory, antler, or baked clay, they differ little in
style from place to place, testifying to the sharing of ideas
over vast distances. Although some have interpreted the
Venuses as objects associated with a fertility cult, others
suggest that they may have been exchanged to cement alli-
ances among groups.
Art historian LeRoy McDermott has suggested that the
Venus figurines are “ordinary women’s views of their own
bodies” and the earliest examples of self-representation.^36
He suggests that the distortions and exaggerations of the
female form visible in the Venus figurines derive from the
ancient artist looking down over her own pregnant body.
Paleolithic archaeologist Margaret Conkey opened the
door to such interpretations through her work combin-
ing gender theory and feminist theory with the science of
archaeology.
With a particular interest in the Upper Paleolithic
art of Europe, Conkey has spent decades challenging the
traditional notion that Paleolithic art was made by male
(^36) McDermott, L. (1996). Self-representation in Upper Paleolithic female
figurines. Current Anthropology 37, 227–276.
(^37) Gero, J. M., & Conkey, M. W. (Eds.). (1991). Engendering archaeology:
Women and prehistory. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
(^38) Mellars, P. (2009). Archaeology: Origins of the female image. Nature 459 ,
176–177, at 176.