Although this story came out a couple of weeks back, it's one of many that I've recently neglected to write up, and as Venus figurines and Ice Age cave art were a couple of the topics that initially got me interested in looking in more detail at the Palaeolithic, I decided I should post something.The unusual aspect of these finds, which were amongst 100,000 recovered from the site, is that the figurines were made from flint, whereas ivory or bone appears to have been the favoured material at other Palaeolithic sites.
Co-author Romuald Schild explained that the artifacts offer "a cultural inventory" for the late Magdalenian era (18,000-10,000 years ago).
In the paper, Schild and colleagues Bodil Bratlund, Else Kolstrup and Jan Fiedorczuk describe the carvings as "stylized voluptuous female outlines" that "are cut out of flint flakes."
The same symbolic representations of women displayed in the artifacts extend across Europe, added Schild, a researcher in the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology at the Polish Academy of Sciences.
Because the site, near the Polish village of Wilczyce, served as a late autumn/early winter hunting camp, it is likely men created the figurines when they were taking breaks from hunting arctic foxes, woolly rhinoceros and other game.
Most of the carvings show a slight curve in the breast area. Very exaggerated curves depict the buttocks, while tiny rounded tops served as heads. One figure's head was, at one point, polished and retouched.
Examination of the flint artifacts under high magnification revealed they were in "mint" condition with no signs of use as tools.
Somehow this seems an illogical idea, whereby people over tens of thousands of years would produce fine works of art solely because the male population hankered exclusively after women with a particular body type that cannot be proven to have even existed, and supposedly thought so little of women with different body shapes that they didn't bother acknowledging them in this particular medium.
Different humans of both sexes find all sorts of shapes and sizes of people attractive, and I can't imagine that similar variations in perceived desirability were absent in the Palaeolithic - so if these figurines were really portraying sexual preferences, why do we not see a greater diversity of form and structure?
Furthermore, the rather odd shapes of the figurines suggest that although they may have not been intended for use as tools, it looks as though they may have been hand-held objects - after all, they don't look as if they'd balance too well if stood on end, for decorative or exhibitive purposes; though why people should want to hold such objects in their hands, I have no way of knowing.
The site where these flint figurines were found is described as having been an autumn or winter hunting camp, leading the authors to conclude that it was occupied by a solely male contingent of the population, although other recent research has suggested that women may also have been involved in hunting activities.
On the other hand, although the 'portable pornography' idea has been around for a number of years, attracting both strong support and sharp criticism along the way, there's no reason to completely dismiss the idea that these objects represent some sort of proto-porn - it just seems odd that the majority of these figurines seem to comply to such a specific, and to me, slightly bizarre body type.
Moreover there are plenty of other ways in which sexual imagery can be portrayed in a portable medium of this type, and it is perhaps surprising that there is not greater evidence of such elsewhere in the contemporary archaeological record.
Venus Figurine Variations: Lalinde/Gönnersdorf Figurines
Cavemen Preferred Full-Figured Ladies
Wikipedia entry
image from here
3 comments:
I haven't studied this, but the figurines seem to make sense as they represent essential aspects of the female form. A small waist and wide hips are defining features of femininity - indicating fertility (from influence of oestrogen) and fecundity (from safer birth). I'd guess selection pressure kept things that way.
Before the days of bras and bottles, breasts were more utilitarian and, after a baby or two, less enduringly attractive than those lower curves. Perhaps modern times and caesarean births have allowed varied tastes to flourish.
Hi Lucy Jr., - good point about the nursing aspect, and maybe you're right, breasts were seen from a more utilitarian viewpoint, a source of nourishment rather than carnal pleasure, although in their pre-milking configuration would still have probably been alluring to the male population - maybe there was even some sort of taboo regarding mammary depiction for these reasons.
I thought taboo was the essence of porn! I wonder how much portability and comfort had to do with figurine shape? Perhaps more realistic shapes weren't so practical to nestle in the hand. It is easier to cradle an egg than an hourglass, when made of stone.
Post a Comment