
See the evidence in our gallery: âThe reality and the fantasy of âpalaeo-pornââ
The idea that curvaceous figurines are prehistoric pornography is an excuse to legitimise modern behaviour as having ancient roots, says archaeologist April Nowell
Which Palaeolithic images and artefacts have been described as pornography?
The Venus figurines of women, some with exaggerated anatomical features, and ancient rock art, like site in France that is supposedly of female genitalia.
Advertisement
You take issue with this interpretation. Who is responsible for spreading it, journalists or scientists?
People are fascinated by prehistory, and the media want to write stories that attract readers â to use a clichĂ©, sex sells. But when a New York Times headline reads âA Precursor to Playboy: Graphic Images in Rockâ, and Discover magazine asserts that manâs obsession with pornography dates back to âCro-Magnon daysâ based on âthe famous 26,000-year-old Venus of Willendorf statuetteâŠ[with] GG-cup breasts and a hippopotamal buttâ, I think a line is crossed. To be fair, archaeologists are partially responsible â we need to choose our words carefully.
Having studied Upper Palaeolithic figurines closely, what did you find?
They are incredibly varied beyond the few figurines seen over and over again: the Venus of Hohle Fels, the Venus of Willendorf and the Venus of DolnĂ VeËstonice. Some are male, some are female; some are human, some are animals or fantastical creatures; some wear items of clothing, others do not. A recent study by my doctoral student Allison Tripp and her colleague Naomi Schmidt demonstrated that the body shapes of female figurines from around 25,000 years ago correspond to women at many different stages of life; theyâre a variety of shapes and sizes. All of this suggests that there are multiple interpretations.
Arenât other interpretations of palaeo-art just as speculative as calling them pornographic?
Yes, but when we interpret Palaeolithic art more broadly, we talk about âhunting magicâ or âreligionâ or âfertility magic.â I donât think these interpretations have the same social ramifications as pornography. When respected journals â Nature for example â use terms such as âPrehistoric pin-upâ and â35,000-year-old sex objectâ, and a German museum proclaims that a figurine is either an âearth mother or pin-up girlâ (as if no other roles for women could have existed in prehistory), they carry weight and authority. This allows journalists and researchers, evolutionary psychologists in particular, to legitimise and naturalise contemporary western values and behaviours by tracing them back to the âmist of prehistoryâ.
Will we ever understand what ancient art really means?
The French, in particular, are doing incredible work analysing paint recipes and tracing the movement of the ancient artists as they painted. We may never have the knowledge to say, âThis painting of a bison meant thisâ, but I am confident that a detailed study of the corpus of ice age imagery, including the figurines, will give us a window on to the âlived lifeâ in the Palaeolithic.
Profile
is a Palaeolithic archaeologist at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Her paper âPornography is in the eye of the beholder: Sex, sexuality and sexism in the study of Upper Paleolithic figurinesâ, co-authored with Melanie Chang, will appear next year