Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ABSTRACT Using the recent discovery of the Hohle Fels figurine as a catalyst, in this article we briefly review
the history of scholarship regarding Upper Paleolithic figurines that are often referred to as Venus figurines.
We integrate this review with a critical examination of the assumptions underlying the Venus hypothesisthe
perspective that these artifacts are best understood as sexual objectsbased on the available data from both inside
and outside of the field of Paleolithic archaeology. We suggest that interpreting the figurines in a purely sexual
context obstructs their objective, scientific study and has unintended social consequences. Following from this, we
consider why the Venus hypothesis persists in the popular media and scholarly research despite decades of reflexive
critiques. Finally, building on these critiques, we argue for the importance of contextualization in the study of Upper
Paleolithic figurines and discuss new approaches to their study. [Upper Paleolithic, figurines, pop culture, media,
science]
`
`
`
R ESUM
E Utilisant la decouverte
recente
de la figurine de Hohle Fels comme catalyste, le present
article passe en
`
ere
revue brievement
lhistoire de la recherche concernant les figurines du Paleolithique
superieur
auxquelles on ref
le plus frequemment
par le terme de figurine Venus.
La revue comporte un examen critique des presuppositions
` de Venus,
sous-jacentes a` lhypothese
notamment quil sagit de facon plausible dobjets sexuels, sappuyant sur
disponibles, dans le cadre mediatique
les donnees
populaire en deca` ainsi qua` linterieur
du domaine de la recherche
sur le Paleolithique.
Nous suggerons
que toutes interpretations
dans un contexte exclusivement sexuel masque une
demarche
scientifique objective comportant des repercussions
sociales imprevues.
Poursuivant ce raisonnement,
`
medias,
science]
RESUMEN Usando el reciente descubrimiento de la estatuilla Hohle Fels como un catalizador, en este artculo
brevemente revisamos la historia del cuerpo de conocimientos sobre las estatuillas del Paleoltico Superior que
con una examinacion
crtica de las
a menudo se refieren como las figuras de Venus. Integramos esta revision
objetivo, cientfico y tiene consecuencias sociales imprevistas. Siguiendo esto, consideramos por que la hipotesis
de
563
e investigacion
academica,
564
FIGURE 1. Venus of Hohle Fels: lateral and front views (photo credit:
H. Jensen; photo courtesy of Professor Nicholas Conard).
It is commonly assumed that the makers of Paleolithic artifacts, be they handaxes (e.g., Kohn and Mithen 1999)
or Upper Paleolithic figurines, were male (e.g., LeroiGourhan 1967:90; Onians 2000; Onians with Collins 1978;
see also discussions in Conkey 1997; Conkey and Gero 1991;
Dobres 1992b; Nelson 1990, 2004; Russell 1991). MarciaAnne Dobres (1992b:1215) identifies a series of prehistoric Barbie Doll models describing common archaeological
interpretations of Venus figurines, in which the figurines
are variously described as serving to educate men, titillate men, or even commemorate acts of violence against
women by men. For example, in the context of an academic
consideration of Upper Paleolithic figurines, Randall Eaton
confidently asserts that whether the females were raped,
565
Upper Paleolithic female figurines are stereotypically described as hyper-female, with exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics. There have been some attempts to quantify the morphological variation in these figurines to facilitate
interpretation. In The Nature of Paleolithic Art, Guthrie (2005)
devotes approximately 70 pages to the argument that
all Venus figurines represent paleo-erotica, based on
their waist-to-hip ratios (WHRs). The WHR describes the
amount and distribution of body fat in living women, both
of which change throughout a womans life due to factors
such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause. WHR also
varies across populations (Singh and Luis 1995). The WHR
has been described as an indicator of fertility and long-term
health (Buss 2004; Singh 2006; Singh and Singh 2006), and
low WHRs (small waist, large hips) are thought to be desirable across cultures (Buss 2004; Henss 1995; Singh 1993;
Singh and Singh 2006; Wing et al. 1991). The contemporary
ideal female WHR cross-culturally is 0.7 (see Tripp and
Schmidt 2013). Guthrie (2005) argued, based on a study
of 53 Venuses, that all Upper Paleolithic female figurines
cluster together around a ratio of 0.655 (i.e., slightly below
the cross-cultural ideal of 0.7) and that therefore Paleolithic
men must also have preferred women with small waists and
curvaceous hips. This interpretation also assumes that Paleolithic sexual attraction was strictly heterosexual and based
on reproduction and fertility.
Upper Paleolithic figurines are actually extremely diverse in style and morphology (see Figures 2 and 3; see
also Dobres 1992a; Nelson 1990; Rice 1981). In fact, the
very first figurine to be discovered, in 1864, was termed
the Venus Impudique or Immodest Venus because its
slim, nude form was thought to be reminiscent of classical
sculpture (White 2006). Furthermore, careful observations
of figurines such as the Venus of Lespugue (esp. when seen
in person; see figure 46 in Cook 2013:97) suggest that it
may be overly reductive to describe the exploration of form
engaged in by the sculptors of some of these figurines as
566
Range of diversity in Upper Paleolithic figurines: (a) Dame de Brassempouy, 25,000 BP (France) (photo credit: MAN and Loc Hamon; photo
courtesy of Musee dArcheologie nationale et Domaine national de Saint-Germain-en Laye); (b) Marionette figure, 26,000 BP (Czech Republic) (photo
from the collection of and courtesy of the Moravske zemske muzeum); (c) Venus of Willendorf, 25,000 BP (Austria) (photo courtesy of the Naturhistorisches
Museum, Wien).
FIGURE 2.
Although discussions of Upper Paleolithic figurines are often framed as though all of the figurines are female, many
are quite obviously not female. There are figurines of nude
males, male animals, and possibly male fantastical characters (e.g., the lion-human hybrids from Hohlenstein-Stadel,
Geienklosterle, and Hohle Fels in Germany), but these are
not interpreted within a sexual framework. While at least
half of all Upper Paleolithic figurines cannot be unambiguously classified as male or female (Dobres 1992a), many abstract forms such as the artifact commonly referred to as the
rod with breasts from Dolni Vestonice (see Figure 4) are
routinely described as female: This statuette shows us that
567
Range of diversity in Upper Paleolithic figurines: (a) Figurine from Malta 23,000 BP (Siberia, Russia) (photo credit: Vladimir Terebenin;
photo copyright and courtesy of The State Hermitage Museum); (b) Venus from Dolni Vestonice, 25,000 BP (Czech Republic) (photo from the collection
of and courtesy of the Moravske zemske muzeum).
FIGURE 3.
the artist has neglected all that did not interest him, stressing
his sexual libido only where the breasts are concerneda
diluvial plastic pornography (Absolon 1949:202). In some
cases, it may just as easily be argued that such abstract figures
are male as that they are female. Is the description of the
Dolni Vestonice artifact as a rod with breasts the most parsimonious explanation of its form or is it possible, or even
more likely, that it represents male genitalia, as suggested
by Alice Kehoe (1991)?3
The interpretations of nearly all Upper Paleolithic
portable artworks as female is perpetuated in both the Ice
Age art exhibit at the British Museum referred to above and
in the volume that accompanies it (Cook 2013:6870). In the
volume chapter entitled Soft Curves, Full Figures: Female
Sculptureseven though many of the images included in
the chapter are either male or are decidedly not full-figured
females, such as the stick-like figurines from Siberia (see Figure 3b) or are isolated heads such as the Dame de Brassempouy (see Figure 2a) and the gender-ambiguous portraits
from Dolni Vestonicethe rod with breasts, a similarly
ambiguous neck with breasts, and a forked piece of ivory
are all described as female. Joyce (2008) commented that
the relevant literature makes it seem more difficult to sex
skeletons, for which sex is a biological reality, than to sex
figurines that are categorized based on cultural conventions
for depicting gender.
Researchers often focus on how female bodies differ
from male bodies (the presumed default) rather than seeing
568
that images of female genitalia are far rarer than has been
claimed in the past, and those which were depicted may well
have been intended simply to indicate gender, rather than
be erotic; the vast majority of Paleolithic art is clearly not
about sex, at least in an explicit sense (1997:89).
Paleolithic Systems of Meaning Recognized Only
Two Genders
For [paleolithic men] as for us . . . the mother who gives and
transmits life is also the woman who gives and shares pleasure:
could the paleolithic have been insensitive to this novel duality?
H. Delporte, Image de la Femme dans lArt Prehistorique [1979:308],
translated and cited in Nelson [1990:16]
569
570
viewing sexualized images of women are more likely to perceive them to be less moral, less competent, less likeable,
and even less human than do men who have not viewed
such images (Heflick and Goldenberg 2009; Loughnan
et al. 2010; Rudman and Borgida 1995), while women who
perceive themselves to be objectified are observed to narrow their social presence or withdraw in social interactions
(Saguy et al. 2010). It can be argued that by turning this objectifying gaze (Mulvey 1975) onto our evolutionary past,
some modern Western archaeologists validate it and serve
to perpetuate its negative effects within modern Western
society.
Why Does the Venus Hypothesis Have Such Staying
Power?
FIGURE 6. Mammoth (top) and bison (bottom) statuettes from the nearby
Aurignacian site of Geienklosterle (photo credit: P. Frankenstein, H. Zwietasch; Landesmuseum Wurttemberg, Stuttgart; photo courtesy of the Landesmuseum Wurttemberg, Stuttgart). These blocky statuettes are described
as being depicted in a symmetrical and neutral fashion (Porr 2010:99,
100, see figures 67).
The question remains as to why the Venus hypothesis continues to be so pervasive in both scholarly and popular contexts,
despite the existence of pointed and reflexive feminist critiques (including recent discussions by Hays-Gilpin 2004;
Molnar 2011; Nesbitt 2001). We believe that there are at
least three possible explanations for its persistence.
First, few comprehensive studies of Upper Paleolithic
figurines that postdate these reflexive critiques have been
published in English (but for notable exceptions, see
Farbstein 2010, 2011a, 2011b; Farbstein et al. 2012, discussed below). Furthermore, much of the recent scholarship
discussing the figurines (other than the announcements of
new discoveries, e.g., Conard 2009)including those publications that have garnered the most media attention (e.g.,
Guthrie 2005; Ogas and Gaddam 2011a, 2011b)actually
comes from outside the field of anthropology, focusing on
aspects of figurines ranging from their roles in psychohistorical frameworks for art appreciation (Bullot and Reber 2013)
to their depictions of patterns of human obesity during the
Upper Paleolithic (King 2013). These studies usually unquestioningly accept and echo pre-1990s interpretations that
the figurines functioned in context primarily as sexual objects, symbolizing aspects of female gender such as sexuality,
fertility, and fecundity.
Second, equally plausible (or implausible and equally
untested) alternative interpretations of Upper Paleolithic
figurines have tended to be treated as niche or fringe studies
by paleoanthropologists and have had relatively little lasting
impact on the popularity of the Venus hypothesis. These
alternative hypotheses include the propositions that the figurines functioned to create and maintain social alliances
(Gamble 1982); that they were used in rituals involving
the purposeful destruction of figurines (Soffer et al. 1993a,
1993b); that they acted as good luck charms or totems during
childbirth (e.g., Augusta 1960); that they represent female
self-portraits (McDermott 1996); or that they are illustrative
of a gynocentric, preagricultural society where particularly
female characteristics were prized (e.g., Gimbutas 1982).
Third, there is an extensive, innovative tradition of
research on non-Paleolithic figurines that has long questioned binary gender categorization and heteronormativity
and has focused on the construction of identity, materializing practices, and the social context of figurine production
(e.g., Bailey 1994, 2007, 2013; Knapp and Meskell 1997;
Kokkinidou 1997; Nakamura and Meskell 2009). However,
this tradition appears to have had limited impact on the
study of Paleolithic figurines, and these studies are rarely
cited by Paleolithic archaeologists (this is the case, for example, in the recent work by Cook [2013]). To the best
of our knowledge, the only scholars studying Paleolithic
figurines who have cited this body of work are the same
researchers who called for a reexamination of the Venus
hypothesis in the first place. Therefore, the third possible explanation for the persistence of the Venus hypothesis is that many of the most cogent and relevant critiques
of such gendered interpretations in a broader archaeological context have simply gone unread by most Paleolithic
archaeologists.
Contextualization and New Approaches to the
Study of Upper Paleolithic Figurines
In archaeology, as in life, context is critical to understanding meaning. It is clear that Venus figurines should be
studied in the same manner as other Paleolithic artifacts,
by undertaking basic analyses that examine raw materials,
knowledge or skills required of the makers, age, and indicators of action (Joyce 2008). The roles of such figurines in
Paleolithic society may also be illuminated by studies of artifact modification, alteration, repair, decoration, and reuse
(Tringham and Conkey 1998). It is critical to conceptualize
these figurines as products of local histories that reflect cultural practices and beliefs that were specific to certain times
and certain places, just like contemporary material culture.
Following Joyce (2008), we suggest examining details
that result when different artists try to do the same thing in
order to understand the significance of variation rather than
shoehorning Paleolithic figurines into interpretive rubrics
relying on notions of erotica or fertility. It is also necessary to consider the different contexts in which the figurines
are found (e.g., in ritual pits, burials, or refuse areas, or
mounted or worn as jewelry; see Kirkness 1999; Tringham
and Conkey 1998) and to compare them with other examples of portable art. For example, the blocky, fragmented
body of the Hohle Fels figurine, covered with engraved lines,
seems less idiosyncratic and less overtly sexual or pornographic (as specifically suggested by some academics and the
popular media) when compared to bison and mammoth figurines from the nearby Aurignacian site of Geienklosterle
(see Figure 6) that are very similar in proportions and style.
When placed into a broader context, the Hohle Fels figurine
becomes part of a larger tradition of visual representation
that does not rely on analyses of its secondary sexual characteristics.
In this regard, Rebecca Farbsteins research on Upper Paleolithic figurines from Eastern Europe (e.g., 2010,
2011a, 2011b; Farbstein et al. 2012) represents an important new direction in the study of Pleistocene visual cultures.
571
572
Victoria,
Columbia,
Canada
V8W
2Y2; mlchang@uvic.ca
NOTES
Acknowledgments.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following people and institutions for their permission to reproduce
the photographs and the illustration that appear in this article: R.
Bourrillon (Castanet Project); Nicolas Conard; P. Frankenstein; Chris Gash; Loic Hamon; The State Hermitage Museum (Russia); H. Jensen; Landesmuseum Wurttemberg, Stuttgart
(Germany); Moravske zemske muzeum (Czech Republic); Musee
dArcheologie nationale et domaine national de Saint-Germain-en
Laye (France); Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien (Austria); Vladimir
Terebenin; Randall White; and H. Zwietasch. We thank Nicolas
Conard for his particularly helpful comments after a presentation of
this research at the Society for American Archaeology meetings in
Memphis, TN. We thank Prof. Nicolas Rolland and Kirsten Blomdal
for help in the preparation of the manuscript. Finally, we thank eight
anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and thought-provoking
comments on earlier drafts of this article.
1. Gendered pronouns (e.g., man and caveman) also continue to be
used by popular science magazines such as Archaeology for Internet
search engine optimization (Jude Isabella, personal communication, December 11, 2013).
2. In a 2011 study, Dixson and Dixson asked 161 Australian undergraduate students (both men and women) to assign ages and rate
the attractiveness of images of 14 Upper Paleolithic figurines, including the Hohle Fels figurine. Most of the figurines (all of which
had high WHRs) were rated not attractive, further undermining
the universality and timelessness of the paleoerotica hypothesis
(Dixson and Dixson 2011).
3. See figure 4 in Cook 2013:70 for particularly striking support
for this interpretation while Cook herself argues for exactly the
opposite interpretation.
4. The discoverers themselves objected to this presentation and
made their objections known to the editors (R. White, personal
communication, November 29, 2013).
5. Signage in the exhibit indicated that some figurines were of young
women who had not had children yet but who flaunt their sexual
potential.
6. Conard was quoted in an Associated Press news article titled
Sexually Charged Figurine Could Be Worlds Oldest. (See
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520068,00.html, accessed May 14, 2009.)
REFERENCES CITED
Absolon, Karel
1949 The Diluvial Anthropomorphic Statuettes and Drawings,
Especially the So-Called Venus Statuettes, Discovered in
Moravia. Artibus Asiae 12(3):201220.
Adovasio, James M., Olga Soffer, and Bohuslav Klema
1996 Upper Palaeolithic Fibre Technology: Interlaced Woven
Finds from Pavlov I, Czech Republic, c. 26,000 Years Ago.
Antiquity 70(269):526534.
Augusta, Josef
1960 Prehistoric Man. London: Hamlyn.
Bahn, Paul G.
1986 No Sex Please, Were Aurignacians. Rock Art Research
3(2):99120.
2006 Sex and Violence in Rock Art: Are Cave Paintings Really Little More Than the Testosterone-Fuelled Scribblings of
Young Men? Review of The Nature of Paleolithic Art by Dale
R. Guthrie. Nature 441(7093):575576.
Bahn, Paul G., and Paul Pettitt
2013 Review of Ice Age Art: Arrival of the Modern Mind. Antiquity
87(337):905908.
Bahn, Paul G., and Jean Vertut
1997 Images of the Ice Age. New York: Facts on File.
Bailey, Douglass W.
1994 Reading Prehistoric Figurines as Individuals. World Archaeology 25(3):321331.
2007 The Anti-Rhetorical Power of Representational Absence:
Incomplete Figurines from the Balkan Neolithic. In Image and
Imagination: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation.
Colin Renfrew and Iain Morley, eds. Pp. 117126. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge: McDonald Institute of
Archeological Research, University of Cambridge, Institute
for Archaeological Research.
2013 Figurines, Corporeality, and the Origin of the Gendered
Body. In A Companion to Gender Prehistory. Diane Bolger,
ed. Pp. 244264. Blackwell Companions to Anthropology
series. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bar-Yosef, Ofer
2002 The Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:363393.
Beck, Margaret
2000 Female Figurines in the European Upper Paleolithic: Politics
and Bias in Archaeological Interpretation. In Reading the Body:
Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record.
Alison E. Rautman, ed. Pp. 202214. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Blackwood, Evelyn
1984 Sexuality and Gender in Certain Native American Tribes:
The Case of Cross-Gender Females. Signs: Journal of Women
in Culture and Society 10(1):2742.
1997 Native American Genders and Sexualities: Beyond Anthropological Models and Misrepresentations. In Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spirituality. Sue-Ellen Jacobs, Wesley Thomas, and Sabine Lang,
eds. Pp. 284294. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois
Press.
573
574
and Jeannette Smith, eds. Pp. 245262. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.
1992b Representations of Palaeolithic Visual Imagery: Simulacra
and Their Alternatives. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 7374:125.
2000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.
2001 Meaning in the Making: Agency and the Social Embodiment
of Technology and Art. In Anthropological Perspectives on
Technology. Michael Brian Schiffer, ed. Pp. 4776. Amerind
Foundation New World Studies series. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Eaton, Randall
1978 The Evolution of Trophy Hunting. Carnivore 1(1):110121.
Economist, The
2009 Paleolithic Pornography Unveiled: Smut Carved from a
Mammoth Tusk. The Economist, May 14,
2009, http://www.economist.com/node/13643965, accessed
May 11, 2014.
Farbstein, Rebecca
2010 Beyond Venus Figurines: Technical Production and Social Practice in Pavlovian Portable Art. In Anthropomorphic
and Zoomorphic Miniature Figures in Eurasia, Africa and
Mesoamerica: Morphology, Materiality, Technology, Function and Context. Dragos Gheorghiu and Ann Cyphers, eds.
Pp. 916. British Archaeology Reports, 2138. Oxford: Archaeopress.
2011a Technologies of Art: A Critical Reassessment of Pavlovian
Art and Society, Using Chane Operatoire Method and Theory.
Current Anthropology 52(3):401432.
2011b The Significance of Social Gestures and Technologies of
Embellishment in Paleolithic Portable Art. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 18(2):125146.
Farbstein, Rebecca, D. Radic, D. Brajkovic, and Preston T. Miracle
2012 First Epigravettian Ceramic Figurines from Europe (Vela Spila, Croatia). Plos One, July 24.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.
1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041437, accessed May 11, 2014.
Gamble, Clive
1982 Interaction and Alliance in Palaeolithic Society. Man (N.S.)
17(1):92107.
Gaydarska, Bisserka, John Chapman, Ana Raduntcheva, and Bistra
Koleva
2007 The Chaine Operatoire Approach to Prehistoric Figurines:
An Example from Dolnoslav, Bulgaria. In Image and Imagination: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation. Colin
Renfrew and Iain Morley, eds. Pp. 171184. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Gimbutas, Marija
1982 The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Guthrie, R. Dale
1979 Ethological Observations from Palaeolithic Art. In La contribution de la zoologie et de lethologie a` linterpretation
de lart des peuples chasseurs prehistoriques [Zoological and
575
McCaughey, Martha
2008 The Caveman Mystique: Pop-Darwinism and the Debates
over Sex, Violence and Science. New York: Routledge.
McDermott, LeRoy
1996 Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines.
Current Anthropology 37(2):227275.
Mellars, Paul
2009 Origins of the Female Image. Nature 459(7244):176177.
Molnar, Petra
2011 The Venus: Mother or Woman? Manitoba Anthropology
29:18.
Mulvey, Laura
1975 Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen 16(3):618.
Nakamura, Carolyn, and Lynn Meskell
2009 Articulate Bodies: Forms and Figures at Catalhoyuk. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory 16(3):205230.
Nelson, Sarah M.
1990 Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and
Archaeological Mythology. In Powers of Observation: Alternative Views in Archeology. Sarah M. Nelson and Alice B.
Kehoe, eds. Pp. 1122. Archeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association, 2. Washington, DC: American
Anthropological Association.
2004 Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige.
Second edition. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.
Nesbitt, Shawntelle
2001 Venus Figurines of the Upper Paleolithic. Totem: The
University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology
9(1):5364.
Ogas, Ogi, and Sai Gaddam
2011a A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the Internet Tells Us
about Sexual Relationships. New York: Plume.
2011b A Billion Wicked Thoughts. Discover Magazine, July
August:4649.
Onians, John
2000 The Biological and Geographical Bases of Cultural Borders:
The Case of the Earliest European Prehistoric Art. In Borders in Art: Revisiting Kunstgeographie. Katarzyna MurawskaMuthesius, ed. Pp. 2733. Warsaw: Instytut Sztuki PAN,
Warsaw Institute of Art.
Onians, John, with D. B. Collins
1978 The Origins of Art, Part 2: Commentary. Art History
1(1):1125.
Page, Lewis
2009 Archaeologists Unearth Oldest Known 3D Pornography. The Register, May 15. http://www.theregister.
co.uk/2009/05/15/german stone age 3d smut figurine/,
accessed May 11, 2014.
Piette, E.
1895 La station de Brassempouy et les statuettes humaines de
la periode glyptique [The site of Brassempouy and human
statuettes from the Upper Paleolithic period]. LAnthropologie
6:129151.
Pinker, Steven
1997 How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton.
576
Porr, Martin
2010 Palaeolithic Art as Cultural Memory: A Case Study of the
Aurignacian Art of Southwest Germany. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20(1):87108.
Prine, Elizabeth
2000 Searching for Third Genders: Towards a Prehistory of Domestic Spaces in Middle Missouri Villages. In Archaeologies of
Sexuality. Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, eds. Pp.
197219. London: Routledge.
Rice, Patricia C.
1981 Prehistoric Venuses, Symbols of Motherhood or Womanhood? Journal of Anthropological Research 37(4):402414.
Rudman, Laurie A., and Eugene Borgida
1995 The Afterglow of Construct Accessibility: The Behavioral
Consequences of Priming Men to View Women as Sexual Objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31(6):493
517.
Rupp, Heather A., and Kim Wallen
2009 Sex-Specific Content Preferences for Visual Sexual Stimuli.
Archives of Sexual Behavior 38(3):417426.
Russell, Pamela
1991 Men Only? The Myths about European Paleolithic Artists.
In The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the 22nd Chacmool Conference. Dale Walde and Noreen D. Willows, eds.
Pp. 346351. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.
1993 Forme et imagination: Limage feminine dans LEurope
paleolithique [Form and imagination: The female image in
paleolithic Europe]. Paleo 5(5):375388.
1998 The Paleolithic Mother-Goddess: Fact or Fiction? In Reader
in Gender Archaeology. Kelley Hays-Gilpin, and David S.
Whitley, eds. Pp. 261268. London: Routledge.
Saguy, Tamar, Diane M. Quinn, John F. Dovidio, and Felicia Pratto
2010 Interacting Like a Body: Objectification Can Lead Women
to Narrow Their Presence in Social Interactions. Psychological
Science 21(2):178182.
Salmon, Catherine A.
2012 The Pop Culture of Sex: An Evolutionary Window on the
Worlds of Pornography and Romance. Review of General
Psychology 16(2):152160.
Seltman, Charles
1957 Women in Antiquity. London: Pan.
Sharpe, Kevin, and Leslie Van Gelder
2004 Children and Paleolithic Art: Indications from Rouffignac
Cave, France. International Newsletter on Rock Art 38:917.
2006a The Study of Finger Flutings. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 16(3):281295.
2006b Evidence for Cave Marking by Palaeolithic Children. Antiquity 80(310):937947.
2006c Finger Flutings in Chamber A1 of Rouffignac Cave, France.
Rock Art Research 23(2):179198.
Shields, Rachel
2010 Indias Third Sex Win a Measure of Public Acceptance.
The Independent, February 21. http://www.independent.
co.uk/news/world/asia/indias-third-sex-win-a-measure-ofpublic-acceptance-1905797.html, accessed May 12, 2014.
577
http://theweek.com/article/index/256474/facebookoffers-users-56-new-gender-options-heres-what-they-mean,
accessed May 11, 2014.
White, Randall
2006 The Women of Brassempouy: A Century of Research and
Interpretation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
13(4):251304.
White, Randall, Romain Mensan, Raphaelle Bourrillon, Catherine
Cretin, Thomas F. G. Higham, Amy E. Clark, Matthew L.
Sisk, et al.
2012 Context and Dating of Aurignacian Vulvar Representations from Abri Castanet, France. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
109(22):84508455.
Wing, R.R., K.A. Matthews, L.H. Kuller, E.N. Meilahn, and P.
Planting
1991 Waist to Hip Ratio in Middle-Aged Women: Associations
with Behavioral and Psychological Factors and with Changes
in Cardiovascular Risk Factors. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis,
and Vascular Biology: Journal of the American Heart Association 11(5):12501257.