No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The 40,000-Year-Old Female Figurine of Hohle Fels: Previous Assumptions and New Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 June 2020
Abstract
As the earliest image of a human being and the oldest piece of figurative art, the female figurine of Hohle Fels remains a significant discovery for understanding the development of symbolic behaviour in Homo sapiens. Discovered in southwestern Germany in 2008, this mammoth-ivory sculpture was found in several fragments and has always been assumed to be complete, never owning a head. In place of a head, there is instead a small loop that would allow her to be threaded, possibly to be worn as a pendant. Several hypotheses have been put forward as to her original use context, ranging from representing a fertility goddess to a pornographic figure. Yet none of these theses have ever suggested that she once had a head. Here we explore whether the female figurine of Hohle Fels was designed as a two-part piece, with the head made of perishable material culture, possibly woven plant or animal fibres; or that the artefact is a broken and reworked figurine with the head simply never found. By exploring the possibility that this figurine did originally have a second part—a head—we investigate issues surrounding the role of women and children in the Swabian Aurignacian.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 2020
References
Abramova, Z.A., 1960. Elementy odezhdy i ukrashenija na skul’pturnikh izobrazheniakh cheloveka epokhi verdhnego paleolita v Evrope i Sibiri [Elements and decorations on sculpted images of Upper Palaeolithic man in Europe and Siberia]. Materialyi Issledovania po Arkheologii 79, 126–49.Google Scholar
Adovasio, J.M., Soffer, O. & Klíma, B., 1996. Upper Palaeolithic fibre technology: interlaced woven finds from Pavlov I, Czech Republic, c. 26,000 years ago. Antiquity 70, 526–534.Google Scholar
Cameron, E.L., 1997. In search of children. Dolls and agency in Africa. African Arts 30, 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centner, T., 1962. L'enfant africain et ses jeux dans le cadre de la vie traditionnelle [The African child and his games as part of traditional life]. Élisabethville: CEPA.Google Scholar
Chapman, J., 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. People, places, and broken objects in the prehistory of south-eastern Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Conard, N.J., 2009. A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels cave in southwestern Germany. Nature 459, 248–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conard, N.J. & Kind, C.-J., 2017. Als der Mensch die Kunst erfand [When man invented art]. Darmstadt: Theiss.Google Scholar
Conard, N.J. & Malina, M., 2015. Eine mögliche zweite Frauenfigurine vom Hohle Fels und Neues zur Höhlennutzung im Mittel- und Jungpaläolithikum [A possible second female figurine from Hohle Fels and news about the use of the cave in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic]. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 2014, 54–9.Google Scholar
Conard, N.J. & Malina, M., 2016. Außergewöhnliche neue Funde aus den aurignacienzeitlichen Schichten vom Hohle Fels bei Schelklingen [Exceptional new finds from the Aurignacian layers of Hohle Fels near Schelklingen]. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 2015, 60–66.Google Scholar
Conard, N.J. & Wolf, S., 2010. Die Venus vom Hohle Fels [The Venus from Hohle Fels]. Blaubeuren: Urgeschichtliches Museum Blaubeuren.Google Scholar
Demeschenko, S.A., 2008. Semanticheskaya interpretaciya arheologichesqkih artefactov [Semantic interpretation of archaeological artefacts]. Homo Eurasicus. V glubinah i prostranstvah.Google Scholar
Dixson, A.F. & Dixson, B.J., 2011. Venus figurines of the European Paleolithic: symbols of fertility or attractiveness? Journal of Anthropology. doi: 10.1155/2011/569120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobres, M.-A., 1992. Re-presentations of Palaeolithic visual imagery: simulacra and their alternatives. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 73–74, 1–25.Google Scholar
Eiland, M.L. III., 2005. Felting between east and west. Visual Anthropology 20, 263–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elderkin, K., 1930. Jointed dolls in antiquity. American Journal of Archaeology 34, 455–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fane, D., Jacknis, I. & Breen, L.M., 1991. Objects of Myth and Memory. American Indian art at the Brooklyn Museum. New York (NY): Brooklyn Museum.Google Scholar
Gero, J. 1991. Genderlithics: women's roles in stone tool production, in Engendering Archaeology: Women and prehistory, eds Gero, J.M. & Conkey, M.. Oxford: Blackwell, 163–93.Google Scholar
Gilmour, G.H., 1997. The nature and function of astragalus bones from archaeological contexts in the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16, 167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, R.D., 1984. Ethological observations from Palaeolithic art, in La contribution de la zoologie et de l'éthologie à l'interprétation de l'art des peuples chasseurs préhistoriques [The contribution of zoology and ethology of the interpretation of the art of prehistoric hunting peoples], eds Bandi, H.-G., Huber, W., Sauter, M.-R. & Sitter, B.. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 35–74.Google Scholar
Hahn, J., 1988. Die Geissenklösterle-Höhle im Achtal bei Blaubeuren I. Fundhorizontbildung und Besiedelung im Mittelpaläolithikum und im Aurignacien [The Geissenklösterle cave in the Achtal ben Blaubeuren I. Formation and settlement in the Middle Palaeolithic and Aurignacian] (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 26.) Stuttgart: Theiss.Google Scholar
Hechter-Schulz, K., 1966. Fertility dolls. Cults of the Nguni and the tribes of the southern Bantu. Anthropos 61, 516–28.Google Scholar
Hurcombe, L.M., 2014. Perishable Material Culture in Prehistory. Investigating the missing majority. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelínek, J., 1959. Einleitung, Bestattung und skelettmaterial/ Introduction, burial and skeletal material, in Der fossile Mensch Brno II [The fossil person of Brno II], eds Jelínek, J., Pelíšek, J. & Valoch, K.. Brno: Vytiskla Grafia, 17–22.Google Scholar
Koerper, H.C. & Whitney-Desautels, N.A., 1999. Astragalus bones: artifacts or ecofacts? Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 35, 69–80.Google Scholar
Langdon, S., 2007. The awkward age: art and maturation in early Greece, in Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy, eds Cohen, A. & Rutter, J.B.. (Hesperia supplement 41.) Princeton (NJ): American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 173–91.Google Scholar
Lange, M., 1961. Dolls for the promotion of fertility as used by some of the Nguni tribes and the Basuto. Annals of the Cape Provincial Museums 1, 86–101.Google Scholar
Lau, G.F., 2017. South America—Andes, in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. Insoll, T.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 391–416.Google Scholar
Lee, E.J., Merriwether, D.A., Kasparov, A.K., Nikolskiy, P.A., Sotnikova, M.V., Pavlova, E.Y. & Pitulko, V.V., 2015. Ancient DNA analysis of the oldest canid species from the Siberian Arctic and genetic contribution to the domestic dog. PLoS One 10, e0125759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, M.C. (ed.), 2006. Not Just a Pretty Face. Dolls and human figurines in Alaska native cultures. Fairbanks (AK): University of Alaska Press.Google Scholar
Linn, A., 2006. Playing for real. Scholarly perspectives on Alaska native play and ritual, in Not Just a Pretty Face. Dolls and human figurines in Alaska native cultures, ed. Lee, M.C.. Fairbanks (AK): University of Alaska, 49–54.Google Scholar
Meskell, L., 2017. The archaeology of figurines and the human body in prehistory, in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. Insoll, T.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–36.Google Scholar
Morriss-Kay, G., 2012. A new hypothesis on the creation of the Hohle Fels ‘Venus’ figurine, in L'art pléistocène dans le monde [Pleistocene art of the world]. Actes du Congrès IFRAO, Tarascon-sur-Ariège, septembre 2010, ed. Clottes, J.. Tarascon-sur-Ariège: Société Préhistorique Ariege-Pyrenees, 1589–95.Google Scholar
Oliva, M., 2000. The Brno II Upper Paleolithic burial, in Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia (30,000–20,000 BP), eds Roebroeks, W., Mussi, M., Svoboda, J. & Fennema, K.. Leiden: Leiden University Press, 143–53.Google Scholar
Ovodov, N.D., Crockford, S.J., Kuzmin, Y.V., Higham, T.F.G. & Hodgins, G.W.L., 2011. A 33,000-year-old incipient dog from the Altai mountains of Siberia: evidence of the earliest domestication disturbed by the Last Glacial Maximum. PLoS One 6, e22821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, L.R., 1994. Gender, craft, and the reconstructions of tool use. Helinium 34, 186–200.Google Scholar
Pettitt, P.B. & Trinkaus, E., 2000. Direct radiocarbon dating of the Brno 2 Gravettian Human Remains. Anthropologie 38, 149–50.Google Scholar
Porr, M., 2010. The Hohle Fels ‘Venus’: some remarks on animals, humans, and metaphorical relationships in early Upper Palaeolithic art. Rock Art Research 27, 147–59.Google Scholar
Roth, W.E., 1902. Games, sports and amusements of the Northern Queensland Aboriginals. Report of the Ninth Meeting of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science Held at Hobart Tasmania, 45–69.Google Scholar
Saier, C.R., 1994. Das Material der ‘Altgrabungen’ vom Hohlen Felsen, Gemeinde Schelklingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis [The material of the ‘old excavations’ from the Hohle Felsen, municipality of Schelklingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis]. Masters thesis, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.R., 1910. Der Sirgenstein und die diluvialen Kulturstätten Württembergs [The Sirgenstein and the diluvial cultural sites of Württemberg]. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.R., 1912. Die diluviale Vorzeit Deutschlands [The diluvial times of Germany]. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart.Google Scholar
Soffer, O., 2004. Recovering perishable technologies through use wear on tools: preliminary evidence for Upper Paleolithic weaving and net making. Current Anthropology 45, 407–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soffer, O., Adovasio, J.M. & Hyland, D.C., 2000. The ‘Venus’ figurines: textiles, basketry, gender, and status in the Upper Palaeolithic. Current Anthropology 41, 511–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, A. 2017. Predynastic Egyptian figurines, in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. Insoll, T.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 63–83.Google Scholar
Sutton-Smith, B., 1951. The meeting of Maori and European cultures and its effects upon the unorganized games of Maori children. Journal of the Polynesian Society 60, 93–107.Google Scholar
Valoch, K., 1959. Die Grabbeigaben, in Der Fossile Mensch Brno II, eds Jelínek, J., Pelíšek, J. & Valoch, K.. Brno: Vytiskla Grafia, 23–30.Google Scholar
Vanhaeren, M. & d'Errico, F., 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geographic of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 1105–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wragg Sykes, R.M. 2015. To see a world in a hafted tool: birch pitch composite technology, cognition and memory in Neanderthals, in Settlement, Society and Cognition in Human Evolution: Landscapes in the mind, eds Coward, F., Hosfield, R., Pope, M. & Wenban-Smith, F.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipkin, A.M., Wagner, M., McGrath, K., Brooks, A.S. & Lucas, P.W., 2014. An experimental study of hafting adhesives and the implications for compound tool technology. PLoS One 9(11), e112560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stannard and Langley supplementary material
Stannard and Langley supplementary material
Image
1.2 MB