mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== *McDermott - Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table of Contents Previous: The First Human Images <2.htm> Chronological and Geographical Distribution In spite of many difficulties in dating, especially among finds from France and Italy, a consensus is emerging (but see Bahn and Vertut 1988:85; Soffer 1987:335-36) that the vast majority of these images were created in the middle Upper Paleolithic and are stylistically different from those of the later Magdalenian (Delporte 1993a:241; 1993b:243). These first representations of the human figure are centered in the Gravettian assemblages (Upper Perigordian V3 or Noaillian) of France and related eastern variants of that techno-complex, especially the Pavlovian in the Czech Republic and the Kostenkian in Russia (29,000-23,000 B.P.). For convenience I shall label this style of image the Pavlovian-Kostenkian-Gravettian (hereafter PKG) (Delporte 1993a:213; 1993b:225; Otte and Keeley 1990:579; Soffer 1987:344). Images of this style are most often small-scale statuettes carved in stone, bone, and ivory, with a few early Pavlovian examples modeled in a form of fired loess (Vandiver et al. 1989, Soffer et al. I993). They use the same materials and techniques and distinctive sculptural rendering of mass seen in animal sculptures from earlier Aurignacian sites at Vogelherd and Geissenklosterle (Hahn et al. 1977; Mellars 1989:362-63; White 1989:98) and from later Pavlovian sites at Dolni Vestonice, Moravany-Lopata, Predmost 1, Pavlov 1 (Delporte 1993b:247), and Kostenki 1 (Abramova 1967a, b). This sculptural quality, seen also in strongly carved bas-reliefs of female figures from four French Gravettian sites (Laussel, La Mouthe, Abri Pataud, and Terme Pialat), contrasts sharply with the thoroughly two-dimensional nature of later Magdalenian engraved and painted human figures and animals commonly said to mark the "birth" of representational art (Delporte 1993b:243). Magdalenian human representations are concentrated primarily between 15,000 and 11,000 B.P. (Magdalenian 3 through 6) and are stylistically different from this earlier activity. Most of them parallel in time the famous decorated caves of France and Spain and consist of sketchy engraved and painted "anthropomorphs," which on the basis of an occasional erect penis and tuft of facial hair are considered males, and equally schematic but much more consistently rendered and far more numerous "profile" or "buttock" images, now almost universally seen as portraying females (Bosinski I99I; Delporte 1993a, b; Duhard 1993b; Feustel 1967; Rosenfeld 1977). The consistency with which the more numerous buttock or profile images of females are rendered stands in marked contrast with the relative rarity and variety of the cursorily engraved and painted Magdalenian male "anthropomorphs." This quantitative and qualitative differential in rendering males during the Magdalenian echoes an even more pronounced gender difference among the earlier images. It must be emphasized that these two sets of human images are separated by as much as 10,000 years, and their reliance upon the second and third dimensions respectively shows that they follow different developmental trajectories (Conkey 1985:301). The experience of art history demonstrates that the socioeconomic and cultural context supporting such formal vocabularies could be as diverse as those separating the abstract two-dimensional forms of Christian Romanesque and Byzantine art from the naturalistic third dimension of pagan Greek and Roman sculpture. Radiocarbon dates for the important eastern Gravettian or Pavlovian site of Dolní Vestonice in Moravia indicate that archaic forms of PKG-style images first emerge as early as 30,000 to 28,000 B.P. (Delporte 1993a: 212-13), with most dates falling into the 26,000 B.P. range (Delporte 1993b:244). Other dates ranging from 24,000 to 21,000 B.P. for Kostenki 1 on the Don River in Russia (p. 245), 27,000 to 25,000 B.P. for Pavlov in the Czech Republic (p. 144), 23,000 to 21,600 B.P. at Abri Pataud in France (Movius 1977), and 25,000 B.P. for the Russian site Khotylevo support the conclusion that first-phase PKG image making clusters around one of two interstadials -- the Tursac in the west and the Briansk in eastern Europe, from around 27,000 to 23,000 B.P. (Delporte 1993a:184, 213; 1993b:244; Soffer 1985). While such precision may be unwarranted, absolute dating clearly indicates "a certain chronological homogeneity among sites" with PKG-style activity (Delporte 1993b:245). Geographically, most sites with PKG-style images are located in a 3,000-kilometer-long cultural corridor connecting the northern slopes of the Pyrenees with the river valleys of European Russia.^8 To the south of this "female statuette zone" (Delporte 1993b:244), notable late examples are known from Italy (Radmilli 1969); none have been found in Spain. The contrast between the wide geographical distribution of the early PKG style and the limited extent of the classical FrancoCantabrian cave art during the Magdalenian demonstrates again the distinct natures of these traditions and argues against any "single cumulative, gradual trajectory of artistic development" capable of accounting for the "contexts" or "differential reproduction" of the various "systems of visual imagery" now understood as constituting the Upper Paleolithic record (Conkey 1983:210- 22). To date approximately 40 intact or mostly intact figures in the PKG style have been published, and about twice that number of figures are known as fragments (Bisson and Bolduc 1994, Delporte 1993a, Gamble 1982, Pales and de St.-Pereuse 1976, Praslov 1985). The fragmentary and poorly preserved nature of much of the evidence and the fact that some sites yielded large numbers of finds whereas others are known only from individual pieces make it difficult to describe the geographical distribution of these images quantitatively. For example, more than 70 pieces have been identified from four eastern sites -- Dolní Vstonice (6), Gagarino (8), Khotylevo (5), and Kostenki (53). Abramova (1967b) reports 47 fragmentary works, mostly heads, from Kostenki alone. Brassempouy and Grimaldi show similar concentrated activity, whereas only individual pieces were found at Moravany in the Czech Republic, Savignano and Chiozza in Italy, and Abri Pataud, Le Mouthe, Lespugue, Monpazier, Sireuil, and Tursac in France. Quantitative approaches become even more problematic if one also attempts to count possible variant and unfinished "sketches." A safer indicator is the number of sites from which PKG-style images are known. On the basis of either stratigraphy or stylistic analysis, I identify such images at 24 Upper Paleolithic sites (see table I). *Table I* *Pavlovian, Kostenkian, and Gravettian Sites with* *Stylistically Related Female Figurines* *Site* *Location* *Source* Avdeevo Russia Abrahamova (1967), Praslov (1985) Gagarino Russia Abramova (1967), Tarassov ( 1971) Khotylevo Russia Delporte (1993a) Kostenki Russia Abramova (1967a, b), Praslov (1986) Dolni Vestonice Czech Republic Absolon (1949) Moravany Czech Republic Zotz (1968) Pavlov Czech Republic Delporte (I993a) Petrkovice Czech Republic Delporte (I993a) Willendorf Austria Delporte (1993a) Mainz-Linsenberg Germany Passemard (1938), Delporte (1993a) Chiozza Italy Graziosi (1960) Grimaldi (Menton) Italy Passemard (1938), Reinach (1898) Parabita Italy Radmilli (1969) Savignano Italy Graziosi (1960), Passemard (1938) Abri Pataud France Movius (1977) Brassempouy France Passemard (1938), Piette (1895) La Mouthe France Dickson (1990) Laussel France Lalanne and Buoysonnie (1946) Lespugue France de Saint-Perier (1922) Monpazier France Clottes and Cerou (1970) Pechialet France Delporte (1993a) Sireuil France Breuil and Peyrony (1930) Terme Pialat France Delporte (1993a) Tursac (Abri Facteur) France Delporte (1960) Within the stylistic paradigm defined by these sites, regional variations do exist (Delporte 1993a, b). Furthermore, where an adequate sample is available, as in Russia, intra- and even intersite distinctions can be demonstrated (Gvozdover 1989b). There are subtle variations in height/width ratios, details of arms and heads, and orientation of major body regions which may or may not prove to be of semiological significance. Claims of "empirical variability" (Dolores 1992b:249) or true heterogeneity among these earliest works (Hadingham 1979:220-225; Nelson 1993:51; Pales and de St.-Pereuse 1976:93; Soffer 1987:336) can be defended, however, only by ignoring a clear central tendency defining the style as a whole. General qualities and particular traits characterize all categories of cultural artifacts, and it is not necessarily a methodological mistake to speak "about both the diversity and homogeneity of prehistoric material culture in the same breath" (Dolores 1992a:8). While accepting that "the unique features of Palaeolithic art are . . . vital clues to any attempt at interpretation" (Layton 1992:219) and that PKG-style figurines, "like any other archaeological object, contain enumerable variables that can be quantified and compared," one must also acknowledge a distinctive approach to form and content that is more than "just one subset of superficial . . . attributes" associated with the nude female body (Soffer 1987:336). Real female bodies do not taper top and bottom, carry their buttocks above the tailbone, or possess the other distortions and anatomical omissions which define the PKG style. Since stone tools from open-air Russian sites have long been recognized as related to industries from Central Europe (see Gvozdover 1989b:32; Praslov 1985:182), it is quite probable that their human figurines are also related. For Delporte the common lithic characteristics underlying regional variations "imply, if not homogeneity among European Gravettian groups, at least a measure of similarity worth recognizing" (1993b:244). As in the lithic assemblages, the "stylistic unity" and "figurative paternity" seen between "remarkably homogeneous" PKG-style images from Russian sites at Kostenki, Gagarino, Avdeevo, and Khotylevo and those from western Gravettian and Central European Pavlovian sites reveal common selective processes. There is no theoretical impediment to studying the context of such choices in the forms of their representational art. At the core of the PKG-style lies a set of departures or deviations from an otherwise anatomically accurate representation of the human body (Abramova 1967b:67; Delporte 1993a:244; 259,275), and according to Gzovdover this "stylistic deformation of the natural body reveals a common tendency throughout Europe" (1989b:79). Next: Previous Interpretations <4.htm>