Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T17:55:42.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Female Image: A ‘Time-factored’ Symbol. A Study in Style and Aspects of Image Use in the Upper Palaeolithic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

A. Marshack
A. Marshack
Affiliation:
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Ave, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ‘art’ of the early Upper Palaeolithic refers to the images and symbols of the hunters of horse, bison and mammoth during the last European Ice Age that began more than 32,000 years ago. It is therefore interesting that it is not the image of the animal that develops in complexity and variability across Ice Age Europe for the next 20,000 or so years, but the image of the female. The image and the concept of the Ice Age female has perhaps been the subject of more intense emotional debate in the last century than the image of the animal (Ucko 1962; 1969; Clottes and Cerou 1970; LeroiGourhan 1965; Ucko and Rosenfeld 1972; Stoliar 1977–78). The debate continues, both with new finds and new ideas (Rosenfeld 1977; Delporte 1979; Rice 1981; Gamble 1982; Cerda 1983; Guthrie 1984; Praslov 1985; Sonneville-Bordes 1986; Lorblanchet and Welte 1987; Gvozdover 1989; Duhard 1989).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , 1991 , pp. 17 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramova, Z. A. 1960. Elements of dress and adornment on carved human figures from the Upper Paleolithic in Europe and Siberia. Materialy i Issledovaniia po Arkheologii SSR 79, 126–40.Google Scholar
Abramova, Z. A. 1967. Paleolithic art in the U.S.S.R. Arctic Anthropology 4(2), 1–179.Google Scholar
Absolon, K. 1949. The diluvial anthropomorphic statuettes and drawings, especially the so-called Venus statuettes discovered in Moravia. Artibus Asiae 12(3), 201–20. Switzerland: Ascona.Google Scholar
Bahn, P. G. 1986. No sex, please, we're Aurignacians. Rock Art Research 3(2), 99–120.Google Scholar
Bahn, P. G. and Vertut, J. 1988. Images of the Ice Age. Leicester: Windward.Google Scholar
Bosinski, G. and Fischer, G. 1974. Die Menschendarstellungen von Gönnersdorf: Der Ausgrabung von 1968. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Bosinski, G. 1982. Die Kunst der Eiszeit in Deutschland und in der Schweiz. Katalog vor- und frühgeschichtliche Altertümer 20 d. RGZM. Bonn.Google Scholar
Breuil, H. 1924. Notes de voyage Paleolithique en Europe centrale. 11, Les industries Paleolithique du loess Moravie et Bohème. L'Anthropologie 34, 515–52.Google Scholar
Capitan, L. and Peyrony, D. 1928. La Madeleine: son Gisement, son Industrie, ses Ouevres d'Art. Publications de l'Institut International d'Anthropologie, no. 2. Paris: Emile Nourry.Google Scholar
Cerdá, J. 1983. Sur des sanctuaires monothematiques dans l'art rupestre Cantabrique. In Beltran, A. et al. (eds), The Intellectual Expressions of Prehistoric Man: Art and Religion, 331–48. Acts of the Val Camonica Symposium '79. Val Camonica: Edizioni del Centre.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. and Cérou, E. 1970. La statuette féminine de Monpazier (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société Préhist. Française 67(2), 435–44.Google Scholar
de Groot, P. and de Vries, Theo 1962. Venus van Mierlo (Gevonden). AO — REEKS verschijnt wekelijks, no. 919, 6/6/62.Google Scholar
Delluc, B. and Delluc, G. 1978. Les manifestations graphiques Aurignaciens sur support rocheux des environs des Eyzies (Dordogne). Gallia Préhistoire 21, 213–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delluc, B. and Delluc, G. 1981. La Grotte Ornée de Comarque à Sireuil (Dordogne). Gallia Préhistoire 24(1), 1–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delluc, B. and Delluc, G. 1985. De l'empreinte au signe. In Traces et Messages de la Préhistoire, Dossiers de l'Arch. 90, 56–62.Google Scholar
Delporte, H. 1979. L'intage de la Fentme dans l'Art Préhistorique. Paris.Google Scholar
de Saint Périer, R. 1936. La Grotte d'lsturitz: II, Le Magdalénien de la Grande Salle. Mémoire 17, Archives de l'Institut de Paléontologie Humaine.Google Scholar
Duhard, Jean-Pierre 1989. La Réalisme Physiologique des Figurations Feminines du Paléolithique Supérieur en France. Thèse presentée à L'Université de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Feustel, R. 1971. Sexuologische reflexionen über jungpaläolithische objekte. Alt-Thüringen 11, 7–46.Google Scholar
Gamble, C. 1982. Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic society. Man 17(1), 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gvozdover, M. D. 1989. The typology of female figurines of the Kostienki Paleolithic culture. In Soffer-Bobyshev, O. (ed.), Female Imagery in the Paleolithic. Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology 27(4), 32–94.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. R. 1984. Ethological observations from Palaeolithic art. In La Contribution de la Zoologie etde l'Ethnologie à l'interpretation de l'Art Peuples Chasseurs Préhistoriques, 35–74. Friborg: Editions Universitaires.Google Scholar
Jelinek, J., Pelisek, K. and Valoch, K. 1959. Der fossile Mensch Brno 11. Anthropos 9(1), 5–30.Google Scholar
Jelinek, J. 1975. The Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Evolution of Man. London: Hamlyn.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1965. Préhistoire de l'Art Occidental. Paris: Mazenod.Google Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. and Welte, M.-C. 1987. Les figurations feminines stylisées du Magdalenien Superieur du Quercy. Bulletin de la Société des Etudes du Lot 3, 3–57.Google Scholar
Lubine, V. P. and Praslov, N. D. 1987. Le Paléolithique en URSS: Découvertes Récentes. Leningrad: Académie des Sciences de l'URSS, Institut d'Archeologie.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1973. Analyse préliminaire d'une gravure à système de notation de la grotte du Taï (St Nazaire-en-Royans, Drôme). Etudes Préhistoriques 4, 13–17.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1974. On Upper Paleolithic engraving. Current Anthropology 15(3), 328–32.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1975. Exploring the mind of Ice Age man. National Geographic 147(1), 62–89.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1976. Complexité des traditions symboliques du Paléolithique Supérieur. In Lumley, H. de (ed.), La Préhistoire Française, 749–54. Paris: Editions CNRS.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1976a. Some implications of the Paleolithic symbolic evidence for the origins of language. Current Anthropology 17(2), 274–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshack, A. 1976b. Aspects of style versus usage in the analysis and interpretation of Upper Paleolithic images. In Prétirage, , Les Courants Stylistiques dans l'Art Mobilier au Paléolithique Supérieur, 118–46. Colloque XVI, IX Congrés UISPP. Nice.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1977. The meander as a system: The analysis and recognition of iconographic units in Upper Paleolithic compositions. In Ucko, P. (ed.), Form in Indigenous Art: Schematization in the Art of Aboriginal Australia and Prehistoric Europe, 286–317. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1979. Upper Paleolithic symbol systems of the Russian Plain: cognitive and comparative analysis of complex ritual marking. Current Anthropology 20(2), 271–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshack, A. 1985. Hierarchical Evolution of the Human Capacity: The Paleolithic Evidence. New York: American Museum of Natural History.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1986a. The eye is not as clever as it thinks it is. Rock Art Research 3(2), 111–16.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1986b. Une figurine de Grimaldi ‘redécouverte’: analyse et discussion. L'Anthropologie 90(4), 807–14.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1988a. Paleolithic cakndars. In Tattersall, I., Delson, E., E., and Van Couvering, J. (eds), Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory, 419–21. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1988b. Hommage to Jean Vertut. In Bahn, P. and Vertut, J., Images of The Ice Age, 195–202. Leicester: Windward.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1989. Theory and methodology in the study of the Upper Paleolithic signs. Rock Art Research 6, 17–53.Google Scholar
Marshack, A. 1990. L'evolution et la transformation du décor du debut de l'Aurignacien au Magdalénien Final. In Clottes, J. (ed.), Actes du Colloque International d'Art Mobilier Paléolithique, 141–62.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. J. 1988. Looking and learning: Upper Palaeolithic art and information gathering. World Archaeology 19(3), 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Movius, H. L. Jr., 1977. Excavation of the Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies (Dordogne): Stratigraphy. American School of Prehistoric Research, Bull. 31. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Pales, L. and de St Pereuse, M. T. 1976. Les Gravures de La Marche: II, Les Humaines. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Praslov, N.D. 1985. L'art du Paléolithique Supérieur à l'est de l'Europe. L'Anthropologie 89(2), 181–92.Google Scholar
Rice, P. C. 1981. Prehistoric Venuses: Symbols of motherhood or womanhood? Journal of Anthropological Research 37(4), 402–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, A. 1977. Profile figures: schematization of the human figure in the Magdalenian Culture of Europe. In Ucko, P. J. (ed.), Form in Indigenous Art: Schematization in the Art of Aboriginal Australia and Prehistoric Europe, 90–109. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Saccasyn-della Santa, E. 1947. Les Figures Humaines du Paléolithique Supérieur Eurasiatique. Anvers.Google Scholar
Shovkoplas, I. G. 1965. Mezhinskaya Stoyinka. Kiev.Google Scholar
Soffer, O. 1985. The Upper Paleolithic of the Russian Plain. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sonneville-Bordes, Denise de 1986. Le bestiaire Paléolithique en Périgord. Chronologie et signification. L'Anthropologie 90(4), 613–56.Google Scholar
Stoliar, A. D. 1977–1978. On the sociohistorical decoding of Upper Paleolithic female signs. Sov. Anthro. and Archaeo. 16(3–4), 36–77.Google Scholar
Ucko, P. J. 1962. The interpretation of prehistoric anthropomorphic figurines. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 92(1), 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ucko, P. J. 1969. Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Material from Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greece. Royal Anthropological Institute paper, no. 24.Google Scholar
Ucko, P. J. and Rosenfeld, A. 1972. Anthropomorphic representation in Palaeolithic art. Santander Symposium, Actes del Symposium Internacional de Arte Prehistórico, 149–211.Google Scholar
Vandiver, Pamela V., Soffer, O., Klima, B. and Svoboda, J. 1989. The Origins of Ceramic Technology at Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia. Science 246, 1002–1008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasil′ev, S. A. 1985. Une statuette d'argile Paléolithique de Sibérie du Sud. L'Anthropologie 89(2), 193–95.Google Scholar
White, R. 1989a. Production complexity and standardization in early Aurignacian bead and pendant manufacture: evolutionary implications. In Mellars, P. and Stringer, C. (eds), The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives in the Origins of Modern Humans. 1, 360–99. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
White, R. 1986b. Visual thinking in the Ice Age. Scientific American 261(1), 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar