杏吧原创

See the evidence in our gallery: 鈥�The reality and the fantasy of 鈥榩alaeo-porn鈥�鈥�

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.

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 鈥� to use a clich茅, sex sells. But when a New York Times headline reads 鈥淎 Precursor to Playboy: Graphic Images in Rock鈥�, and Discover magazine asserts that man鈥檚 obsession with pornography dates back to 鈥淐ro-Magnon days鈥� based on 鈥渢he famous 26,000-year-old Venus of Willendorf statuette鈥�[with] GG-cup breasts and a hippopotamal butt鈥�, I think a line is crossed. To be fair, archaeologists are partially responsible 鈥� 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 Doln铆 Ve藝stonice. 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; they鈥檙e a variety of shapes and sizes. All of this suggests that there are multiple interpretations.

Aren鈥檛 other interpretations of palaeo-art just as speculative as calling them pornographic?
Yes, but when we interpret Palaeolithic art more broadly, we talk about 鈥渉unting magic鈥� or 鈥渞eligion鈥� or 鈥渇ertility magic.鈥� I don鈥檛 think these interpretations have the same social ramifications as pornography. When respected journals 鈥� Nature for example 鈥� use terms such as 鈥淧rehistoric pin-up鈥� and 鈥�35,000-year-old sex object鈥�, and a German museum proclaims that a figurine is either an 鈥渆arth mother or pin-up girl鈥� (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 鈥渕ist of prehistory鈥�.

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, 鈥淭his painting of a bison meant this鈥�, 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 鈥渓ived life鈥� in the Palaeolithic.