See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265090963

Science, the Media, and Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Figurines

Article  in  American Anthropologist · September 2014

DOI: 10.1111/aman.12121

CITATIONS READS
14 7,709

2 authors:

April Nowell Melanie Chang

University of Victoria Portland State University
82 PUBLICATIONS   1,713 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   168 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Azraq Marshes Archaeological and Paleoecological Project (AMAPP) View project

How to make stone soup: Is the "paleo diet" a missed opportunity for anthropologists? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Melanie Chang on 09 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

Science, the Media, and Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic

Figurines
April Nowell and Melanie L. Chang

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 hypothesis”—the
perspective that these artifacts are best understood as sexual objects—based 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 ÉSUM É Utilisant la dècouverte rècente de la figurine de Hohle Fels comme catalyste, le prèsent article passe en
revue brièvement l’histoire de la recherche concernant les figurines du Paléolithique supérieur auxquelles on référe
le plus fréquemment par le terme de figurine “Vénus”. La revue comporte un examen critique des présuppositions
sous-jacentes à “l’hypothèse de Vénus”, notamment qu’il s’agit de façon plausible d’objets sexuels, s’appuyant sur
les données disponibles, dans le cadre médiatique populaire en deçà ainsi qu’à l’intérieur du domaine de la recherche
sur le Paléolithique. Nous suggérons que toutes interprétations dans un contexte exclusivement sexuel masque une
démarche scientifique objective comportant des répercussions sociales imprévues. Poursuivant ce raisonnement,
nous abordons les causes d’une telle persistence de l’hypothèse Vénus dans le monde médiatique ainsi que dans
la recherché erudite, malgré des décennies de réflection critique. Finalement, nous fondant sur ces critiques, nous
soutenons l’importance de replacer l’étude des figurines du Paléolithique supérieur dans leur cadre contextuel et
discutons de nouvelles démarches pour leur étude. [Paléolithque supérieur, statuettes féminines, culture populaire,
médias, science]

RESUMEN Usando el reciente descubrimiento de la estatuilla Hohle Fels como un catalizador, en este artı́culo
brevemente revisamos la historia del cuerpo de conocimientos sobre las estatuillas del Paleolı́tico Superior que
a menudo se refieren como las figuras de “Venus”. Integramos esta revisión con una examinación crı́tica de las
asunciones subyacentes de la “hipótesis de Venus”—la perspectiva que estos artefactos se entienden mejor como
objetos sexuales—basados en la información disponible tanto de dentro como fuera del campo de la arqueologı́a
paleolı́tica. Sugerimos que interpretando las estatuillas en un contexto puramente sexual obstruye su estudio
objetivo, cientı́fico y tiene consecuencias sociales imprevistas. Siguiendo esto, consideramos por qué la hipótesis de

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 562–577, ISSN 0002-7294, online ISSN 1548-1433. 
C 2014 by the American Anthropological

Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/aman.12121

 Nowell and Chang • Science, Media, and Upper Paleolithic Figurines
Venus persiste en los medios populares de comunicación e investigación académica, a pesar de décadas de crı́ticas
reflexivas. Finalmente, basados en estas crı́ticas, argumentamos por la importancia de la contextualización en el
estudio de las estatuillas del Paleolı́tico Superior y discutimos nuevas aproximaciones para su estudio. [Paleolı́tico
Superior, estatuillas, cultura popular, medios de comunicación, ciencia]
T he headless, engraved Aurignacian “Venus” of Hohle
Fels (see Figure 1), dating to 35,000 B.P., created a
sensation when it was discovered (Conard et al. 2009). Its
dimensions (66 mm in length) are modest, but its morphol-
ogy inspired hyperbolic introductions in the mass media. The
figurine was described as the “world’s first Page 3 Girl” (The
Sun 2009) and “smut carved from a mammoth tusk” (The
Economist 2009). Perhaps surprisingly, the popular press
was echoing voices originating from within scientific institu-
tions. Nature referred to the figurine as a “prehistoric pinup”
and a “35,000-year-old sex object” with an “explicitly, al-
most aggressively, sexual nature” (Mellars 2009:176–177),
while Science asked whether the figurine could be the “earliest
pornography” (Curry 2009). The Urgeschichtliches Museum
Blaubeuren, where the Hohle Fels figurine is housed, adver-
tised it as an “earth mother or pin-up girl,” as if those were
the only two possible interpretations. The Register newspa-
per quoted a well-respected Paleolithic archaeologist, who
stated, “[The Hohle Fels figurine is] sexually exaggerated to
the point of being pornographic . . . There’s all this sexual
symbolism bubbling up in that period. They were sex-mad”
(Page 2009), in an article headlined “Archaeologists Unearth
Oldest 3-D Pornography.”
It is not unusual for paleontological or archaeological dis-
coveries from the Paleolithic to receive widespread popular
press coverage. The general public is fascinated by human
evolution, and the mass media may be expected to present
related news in a manner that is designed to attract the max-
imum readership. Researchers benefit from such coverage,
as highly publicized research tends to receive more citations
in peer-reviewed journals, more inquiries from other scien-
tists, and more funding opportunities than research that re-
ceives less popular attention (Caulfield 2004; Shuchman and
Wilkes 1997). However, sensationalist language becomes
problematic when placed in a scientific context. When indi-
viduals and institutions involved in archaeological research
and discovery draw on the language of the popular media,
they validate it. The echo chamber expands to include sci-
entists in other fields, who may unquestioningly apply such
facile interpretations in their own research to “naturalize”
and legitimize modern biases, behaviors, and values.
In this article, we briefly review the history of schol-
arship 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 hypothesis”—the perspective that these artifacts are
best understood as sexual objects—based on the available
563
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 AS SEXUAL
OBJECTS
Woman was [the] Gate of Life . . . the Object of Desire; between
these two poles . . . [man’s] emotions swung. –J. Laver, Homage
to Venus [1948:2]
Over 200 anthropomorphic, mostly female figurines (and a
handful of more abstract portable artworks that are some-
times considered to be part of this corpus) are known from
the Upper Paleolithic record (Beck 2000; Nelson 2004).
They are made from a variety of materials, including stone,
bone, ivory, and fired loess, and occur over wide geographic
(from France to Siberia) and temporal ranges (40,000 to
ca. 9,000 B.P.) (Delporte 1993). Since their discovery in
the late 1800s, interpretations of these figurines have re-
flected the social and political contexts of the times. Initial
analyses identified “racial” types, focusing on the perceived
“African” or “Hottentot” characteristics of certain pieces and
identifying them as representatives of “a conquered peo-
ple” (Piette 1895:129–130, quoted in White 2006). The
term Venus was introduced at this time in reference to the
perceived resemblance of some figurines to the so-called
“Hottentot Venus,” Sartje Baartman, a Khoisan woman who
was brought from South Africa to Europe in the early 19th
century and exhibited in a sensationalist and exploitative
fashion across England and France (White 2006).
Since World War II, however, scientific inquiries have
tended to focus on perceived gender and sexual characteris-
tics of the figurines without racial connotations, in part due
to the fact that many early approaches to Paleolithic pari-
etal art assumed that the imagery was related in some way
to human sexuality, fertility, and gender (see discussion in
Bahn and Vertut 1997 and references therein). Kelly Hays-
Gilpin (2004) argues that this change in perspective has less
to do with the properties of the art itself or related ethno-
graphies and more to do with the interpretive frameworks
564 American Anthropologist • Vol. 116, No. 3 • September 2014
FIGURE 1. “Venus” of Hohle Fels: lateral and front views (photo credit:
H. Jensen; photo courtesy of Professor Nicholas Conard).
that are employed. This observation seems to be equally true
of the Venus hypothesis. As Rosemary Joyce has observed,
“the choice of which features to observe and explain begins
with the questions we think are yet to be debated and which
ones we assume are already answered” (2008:8).
The Venus hypothesis is based on a series of primarily
androcentric assumptions about the archaeological past that
have been the subject of numerous pointed, reflexive fem-
inist critiques over the past 20–30 years (e.g., Conkey and
Spector 1984; Dobres 1992b; Conkey and Tringham 1995).
Building on the groundwork of these more general critiques,
in the following sections we specifically examine the scien-
tific validity of the assumptions underlying the Venus hy-
pothesis and consider why it remains so persuasive for many
scholars and laypeople alike.
“Venus” Figurines Were Made by Men for Men
The bulging Venus figurines with enormous buttocks and pen-
dulous breasts, along with vulva drawn on the cave walls were
undoubtedly male art creations, for themselves or for other men
. . . the drawings or carvings were made, touched, carved, and
fondled by men. –Onians with Collins, The Origins of Art [1978:63]
It is commonly assumed that the makers of Paleolithic ar-
tifacts, be they handaxes (e.g., Kohn and Mithen 1999)
or Upper Paleolithic figurines, were male (e.g., Leroi-
Gourhan 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). Marcia-
Anne Dobres (1992b:12–15) identifies a series of “prehis-
toric Barbie Doll” models describing common archaeological
interpretations of “Venus” figurines, in which the figurines
are variously described as serving to educate men, titil-
late 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,
stolen or killed, [the figurines] appear to represent brave
acts among males of a group and would qualify them as
trophies” (1978:7).
The assumption of male authorship is often perpetuated
in the media. For example, while a recent review of an
Ice Age portable art exhibit at London’s British Museum is
careful to consider authorship of the art from a variety of per-
spectives (Kohn 2013), the strapline (summary of the article)
chosen by an editor reads, “Figures up to 40,000 years old
reveal how early man saw and stylized the world around him
and put art before practical concerns” (emphasis added).1
This point of view also underlies a recent popular book
by Arctic biologist Dale Guthrie (2005), who characterizes
the overwhelming majority of Paleolithic art as “sexually
charged images” and violent hunting scenes and argues that
the images are best interpreted as graffiti created by sexu-
ally excited teenage boys based on handprints in cave art.
This is an inaccurate assessment of the corpus of Paleolithic
art, not only because specialists are hard-pressed to identify
any unambiguous examples of “violent hunting scenes” or
“sexually charged” images (Bahn 1986, 2006; Jonaitis 2007)
but also because subsequent studies of handprints and finger
fluting in European caves such as Rouffignac, Pech Merle,
and El Castillo (Sharpe and van Gelder 2004, 2006a, 2006b,
2006c; Snow 2006, 2013) and at Upper Paleolithic cave sites
in Borneo (Chazine 1999; Chazine and Fage 1999a, 1999b;
Chazine and Noury 2006) indicate that men, women, ado-
lescents, and even very young children and babies may be
associated with or have been responsible for such markings.
While such studies do not positively identify who made
Upper Paleolithic figurines, they illustrate that the available
data cannot be used to argue that most Paleolithic art was
made exclusively by boys and men. By extension, it is equally
invalid to assume that female figurines were made only by
men. While the gender(s) of the artists who created Up-
per Paleolithic figurines remain unknown (Bahn 1986), we
believe that the assumption of male authorship is based pri-
marily on the accepted wisdom that “great art” has, through-
out history, been made by men only and on the notion that
the perceived sexual natures of the figurines would uniquely
appeal to men.
Only Men Are Aroused by Visual Stimuli
This may be very politically incorrect but that’s the way it is
. . . It’s all part of our ancestral conditioning. –Bob Guccione,
publisher of Penthouse magazine [quoted in McCaughey 2008:72]
It is commonly assumed, in both academic and popular
discourses, not only that the makers of Upper Paleolithic
figurines were male but also that they were motivated to
make figurines because men find erotic meaning in images
and objects while women do not. For example, Discover, a
magazine considered by much of the general public to be a
reliable source of scientific information, described a recent
study in evolutionary psychology (Ogas and Gaddam 2011a,
2011b) as proving that the male obsession with pornography
 Nowell and Chang • Science, Media, and Upper Paleolithic Figurines
“dates back to Cro-Magnon days,” that “men’s brains are
designed to objectify females,” and that “this objectification
of women extends deep into the mists of prehistory” (Ogas
and Gaddam 2011b:47). The writers, who were also the
study’s authors (2011b:47), support these conclusions with
references to Upper Paleolithic figurines such as the 26,000-
year-old Venus of Willendorf that “features GG-cup breasts
and a hippopotamal butt, but no face [and] the 40,000-year-
old Venus of Hohle Fels [that] boasts even more prodigious
hips and mammaries—and titanic labia.” This sensationalist
article received a great deal of attention because it conformed
neatly to the accepted wisdom about gender and sexuality.
According to Roger Lancaster, “much has been writ-
ten and said about the supposedly visual nature of men’s
sexuality and the supposedly non visual nature of women’s”
(2003:131). Such views are greatly influenced by the findings
of the landmark Kinsey Reports (Kinsey et al. 1948, 1953),
which suggested that (Western) men are sexually aroused by
nude photos and drawings while (Western) women are not.
This claim of gender-based differences in sexual response
has been repeated in the sociobiological literature, as well as
in mainstream feminist discourse, as an unquestioned char-
acteristic of human sexuality (Lancaster 2003). Specifically,
the scientific literature on sexual selection and evolutionary
psychology (e.g., Buss 1994, 2006; Salmon 2012; but see
Thompson and O’Sullivan 2012) posits that eager, aggres-
sive men seek youth and beauty as indicators of fertility,
while coy, choosy women eschew surface evaluations and
instead shrewdly calculate mate value in contexts such as
status or income (i.e., provisioning capacity). Evolutionary
psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker therefore argued that
“it would make no sense for a woman to be easily aroused
by the sight of a nude male” (1997:471–472).
However, research exploring female response to sexual
imagery has in fact challenged many assumptions regarding
gender-based differential response. Studies performed in the
1980s and 1990s found, using objective, clinical measures of
biological arousal, that women are sexually stimulated by vi-
sual representations of male nudity (Lancaster 2003). More
recent studies (Chivers et al. 2004; Kukkonen et al. 2007;
Rupp and Wallen 2009) demonstrate that overall interest,
timing, and duration of sexual arousal are comparable be-
tween men and women. According to Nielson/Net ratings
(Blue 2009), one-third of all visitors to adult websites are
women, with close to 13 million women in the United States
watching pornography online monthly. Theresa Flint, vice
president of Hustler magazine, stated in an interview that 56
percent of her stores’ customers are women (Blue 2009).
Why are the findings of recent studies (and market re-
search data) so different from those of the Kinsey Reports?
These differences beg the question of what has changed about
human sexuality between the 1950s and today. It is not plau-
sible that significant evolution in human sexual response has
occurred during this time. A more likely explanation is that,
as Lancaster observed, “pornography and people’s tastes for
assorted forms of erotic images are not outside the history of
565
men’s and women’s changing desires” (2003:133). Cultural
and historical changes—including the sexual revolution, the
rise of and normalization of feminism, and the eroticization
of the male body in advertising and pop culture—may all
explain these changes (Lancaster 2003). By extension, the
assumption that Paleolithic people would have responded
to images of female nudity in the same manner as modern
people—or, rather, a sample of modern people drawn from
a single Western culture group at a specific point in time—is
untenable. While it is (or should be) clear to anthropologists
that responses to “erotic” images are highly culturally medi-
ated, this is not the accepted wisdom that is perpetuated by
the media and by some scholars outside of anthropology.
All of the Figurines Are the Same
These figures must indicate what the men who produced them
found interesting and desirable. –C. Seltman, Women in Antiquity
[1957:19 quoted in Russell 1998:263]
Upper Paleolithic female figurines are stereotypically de-
scribed as “hyper-female,” with exaggerated secondary sex-
ual characteristics. There have been some attempts to quan-
tify 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 woman’s 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 de-
sirable 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 Pale-
olithic sexual attraction was strictly heterosexual and based
on reproduction and fertility.
Upper Paleolithic figurines are actually extremely di-
verse 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 American Anthropologist • Vol. 116, No. 3 • September 2014
FIGURE 2. Range of diversity in Upper Paleolithic figurines: (a) Dame de Brassempouy, 25,000 BP (France) (photo credit: MAN and Loı̈c Hamon; photo
courtesy of Musée d´Archéologie 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 Moravské zemské muzeum); (c) Venus of Willendorf, 25,000 BP (Austria) (photo courtesy of the Naturhistorisches
Museum, Wien).
focused solely on female sexual characteristics, at least not
in a straightforward manner. In a recent study, Alison Tripp
and Naomi Schmidt (2013) tested the hypothesis that all
or most Gravettian “Venus” figurines (ca. 28,000–21,000
B.P.) are characterized by low WHRs as well as the ar-
gument that these figurines represent “paleo-erotica.” They
found that WHRs varied significantly rather than cluster-
ing around “ideal” values, with higher average WHRs across
geographical samples (i.e., Siberia, 0.961; Central Europe,
1.011; Western Europe, 0.970; and Russian Plains, 1.15)
than those reported by Guthrie (2005).
The discrepancies between the findings of
Guthrie (2005) and Tripp and Schmidt (2013) may
be explained by the fact that, while Guthrie relied on
photographs to make measurements, Tripp and Schmidt
measured either the figurines themselves or reliable casts.
It is very difficult to consistently and accurately measure
circumferences using two-dimensional images, and in
fact it is impossible to deduce WHRs from photographs
because it not possible to accurately “measure the exact
protrusions of the belly or the buttocks” (Tripp and
Schmidt 2013:59). Further compounding the difficulty of
measuring photographs, some figurines lack anatomical
landmarks such as navels. Many figurines appear hourglass
shaped from the back but are apple shaped when viewed
from the front (Tripp and Schmidt 2013). In addition,
Guthrie does not list the figurines he included in his sample,
and it is possible that he included Magdalenian figurines in
his study. Magdalenian figurines feature much more abstract
representations of the female form, and calculating WHRs
using Magdalenian figures would therefore have significant
effects on the resulting data (Tripp and Schmidt 2013). As
Tripp and Schmidt note, “if the figurines are read ‘literally,’
the appearance of variation in nearly all the samples
[supports] Rice’s (1981) hypothesis that the ‘Venuses’
represent women of all ages since WHR is not constant
throughout a woman’s life” (2013:59). This interpretation
contradicts the assumption that all of the figurines represent
women of reproductive age.2
All of the Figurines Are Female
[The figurines] match almost exactly the erotic interests of the
sensually alert modern male. –D. Collins and J. Onians, “The
Origins of Art” [1978:13]
[The figurines are] . . . a straight line from the ice-age to Rodin
and the playboy bunnies of later days. –Björn Kurtén, How to
Deep-Freeze a Mammoth [1986:113–114]
Although discussions of Upper Paleolithic figurines are of-
ten 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 charac-
ters (e.g., the lion-human hybrids from Hohlenstein-Stadel,
Geißenklösterle, 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 unambigu-
ously classified as male or female (Dobres 1992a), many ab-
stract 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
 Nowell and Chang • Science, Media, and Upper Paleolithic Figurines
FIGURE 3. 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 Moravské zemské muzeum).
the artist has neglected all that did not interest him, stressing
his sexual libido only where the breasts are concerned—a
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 par-
simonious 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 2013:68–70). In the
volume chapter entitled “Soft Curves, Full Figures: Female
Sculptures”—even 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 Fig-
ure 3b) or are isolated heads such as the Dame de Brassem-
pouy (see Figure 2a) and the gender-ambiguous “portraits”
from Dolni Vestonice—the “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
567
them as human bodies. This results in the disarticulation of
the female body into parts. Thus, the identification of the
“rod with breasts” as female is part of a larger tendency to
describe any image in Paleolithic art that is circular, oval,
triangular, open-angled, or bifurcated as female (see detailed
discussion in Bahn 1986). A recent example is provided by
Randall White and colleagues (2012), who described an en-
graved block found in an early Aurignacian level at Abri
Castanet, France (see Figure 5a) as a vulva, not because the
image itself resembles an actual vulva but because, histor-
ically, similar oval images have been described as vulvas.
Even if it is argued that the engraving is a highly stylized
or abstract image of a vulva, it is impossible to know that
the Q-shaped image has been interpreted correctly because
we have little knowledge of the cultural conventions that
might have been used to depict “disembodied” vulvas during
the Paleolithic or even if vulvas—detached and free-floating
from actual representations of bodies—were being depicted
at all. The New York Times reported the Abri Castanet discov-
ery in an article headlined, “A Precursor to Playboy: Graphic
Images in Rock” with an accompanying figure that depicted
a nude “mudflap girl” in the center of Paleolithic animals
painted on a cave wall (Figure 5b).4 Thus, the inferential
leap from a Q-shaped engraving to a vulva to erotica was
completed by the popular press. Referring to the notion that
certain symbols or shapes always represent female gender
with erotic intent as “one of the most durable myths of pre-
history” (Bahn 1986:99), Paul Bahn and Jean Vertut argue
568 American Anthropologist • Vol. 116, No. 3 • September 2014
FIGURE 4. “Rod with breasts,” mammoth ivory, 8.5 centimeters, Dolni
Vestonice (Czech Republic) (photo from the collection of and courtesy of
the Moravské zemské muzeum).
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 l’Art Préhistorique [1979:308],
translated and cited in Nelson [1990:16]
Discussions of Upper Paleolithic imagery often assume that
this corpus of art represents only two sexes, and only
two genders, and that there is a one-to-one correlation
between sex and gender, therefore projecting dominant
FIGURE 5. (A) Engraved “vulva” from Abri Castanet (photo credit: R.
Bourrillon, Castanet Project; photo courtesy of Randall White) and (B)
the illustration created by The New York Times to accompany its article
on the find (illustration credit: Chris Gash; illustration courtesy of Chris
Gash).
modern Western gender constructs into the past. Classic
examples include the tremendously influential works of An-
nette Laming-Emperaire (1962) and André Leroi-Gourhan
(e.g., 1966, 1967, 1978), both of whom divided all cave art
(figurative and nonfigurative) into male and female symbols.
While both Laming-Emperaire and Leroi-Gourhan aban-
doned this approach and most scholars have moved away
from such explicit categorizations of Upper Paleolithic art,
these ideas remain implicit in scholarly interpretations. By
applying modern Western constructs of gender to the past,
these constructs are given authority and legitimacy and made
to appear natural (see discussion in Joyce 2008; Voss 2008).
However, as anthropologists are aware, gender con-
structs vary cross-culturally among modern human popu-
lations (e.g., Blackwood 1984, 1997, 2009; Devore 1989;
Kalra 2012; Kulick 1998; Lewin 1993). For example, histor-
ically, native North American “two-spirit” individuals (com-
monly referred to as “berdaches” by Western academics)
have been considered to house both male and female essences
in a single body (Blackwood 1997; Jacobs et al. 1997;
Prine 2000; Voss 2008), and in some cultures gender is
thought to emerge or change over time (e.g., Creed 1984;
 Nowell and Chang • Science, Media, and Upper Paleolithic Figurines
Joyce 2008). In India, those who identify with a “third sex”
(hijras), including transvestites, transgenders, and eunuchs,
may now identify as “other” on official ballots (Shields 2010).
In 2013, Germany became the first western European na-
tion to allow a third gender option (“indeterminate”) on
birth certificates, while Australia moved to allow citizens to
identify as “intersex” on official documents such as passports
(Chappell 2013). In early 2014, the online social network
Facebook added 50-odd options to the traditional binary
“male” and “female” gender categories that users may choose
from to self-identify (Weber 2014). While it is clear to
anthropologists that it is not valid to assume that the tradi-
tional binary Western system of gender, rather than other
more fluid ways of thinking about gender and gender rela-
tions, was in place during the Paleolithic, this understanding
does not characterize traditional approaches to studying Up-
per Paleolithic figurines (see Conkey 1997; Dobres 1992a;
Hays-Gilpin 2004; Joyce 2008; Nelson 1990; Tringham and
Conkey 1998).
Related to this point is the assumption, exemplified by
the 2010–11 Urgeschichtliches Museum Blaubeuren exhibit
discussed above (“Pin-Up Girl vs. Earth Mother”), that we
understand Paleolithic gender roles. As Sarah Nelson noted,
“it is clear that an attitude toward women as sex objects has
been read into the distant past. But it goes beyond the pin-
up mentality with a mixing of the idea of figurines as erotic
with the notion of fertility . . . women are explicitly de-
scribed as functional—their uses are to satisfy men’s desires
and to produce children” (2004:127–128). For example,
Jill Cook, the curator of the 2013 Ice Age art exhibit at the
British Museum, divided the figurines into categories: preg-
nant, beyond child-bearing age, and, in the case of a figurine
described as representing a young woman who had not yet
had a child, flaunting her sexual potential.5 This approach
is outmoded and particularly surprising given the work of
Patricia Rice (1981) and Pamela Russell (1993), who demon-
strated as much as 30 years ago that it is not always possible
to distinguish pregnant women from nonpregnant women
and mothers from nonmothers (Bahn and Pettitt 2013).
Furthermore, the question of whom the women portrayed
by Paleolithic figurines might have been, or whether they
were real people (that is, subjects instead of objects), is only
rarely addressed. Rather, the figurines are described purely
in terms of the feelings that they might have evoked in Pa-
leolithic men, who act (in this context) as surrogates for
modern viewers (archaeological researchers).
The fact is, we do not know what it meant to be a
man or a woman (or some other gendered category) during
the Upper Paleolithic. Our conceptions of life during this
period for all peoples have changed significantly in recent
years. We now know that 15,000 to 25,000 years before
agriculture, Upper Paleolithic peoples fired ceramics, dyed
loom-woven textiles and made nets (Adovasio et al. 1996;
Kvavadze et al. 2009; Soffer 2004; Soffer et al. 2000, 2002),
played flutes (Conard et al. 2009), engaged in extensive trade
569
networks, manufactured complex tools (Bar-Yosef 2002),
and created parietal art (Clottes and Geneste 2012; Val-
ladas et al. 2001) as well as standardized items of personal
adornment (Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2006) and other forms
of portable art (Conard 2003). Our current understanding
of life in the Upper Paleolithic is richer and more complex
than ever, and as scientists we should endeavor to uncover
evidence of gender constructs through data analysis rather
than impose modern Western gender constructs on the data
that we collect. As Joyce writes, “for archaeologists, differ-
ences from place to place sketch out a landscape filled with
unique histories. In those local histories, men’s and women’s
lives could develop in many different ways” (2008:13). This
is likely as true of the Upper Paleolithic as any other pe-
riod, and this should be our starting point when studying its
archaeological record.
Being Unclothed Is Erotic
Female figures [in Paleolithic art] often appear in sexually invit-
ing attitudes, which may be quite the same as those in the most
brazen pornographic magazine. There are also anatomically de-
tailed pictures of the vulva, showing the female sex organ some-
times frontally, sometimes inverted and from the back, open to
penetration. –Björn Kurtén, How to Deep-Freeze a Mammoth [1986]
In 1979, Guthrie wrote: “The female figures in Paleolithic art
bear a great resemblance to the images portrayed in men’s
toilet stalls and in erotic magazines” (1979:63). To illus-
trate this point, Guthrie compared anthropomorphic figures
that have been described as female from the European Up-
per Paleolithic with illustrations of “common erotic poses”
based on photographs from the October 1979 German edi-
tion of Playboy Magazine. Guthrie’s argument is problematic
for a number of reasons, one being that it is not clear that
all of the figures he cites are actually female. In addition,
the figures are taken out of context—the “female” figures
from Pech Merle, for instance, are more highly stylized
than Guthrie’s redrawing suggests and have been described
variously in the literature as “women-bison” and “women-
mammoths” (Lorblanchet 2010:29, 143–144, figures 6–7).
Furthermore, a “nude” engraving of a male from the same
region as Pech Merle, who is also portrayed as leaning for-
ward, is not described as assuming a “common erotic pose”
or as “pornographic” (see Lorblanchet 2010:437, figure 10).
Guthrie (1979:68, figure 19) also argues that the “Venus” of
Dolni Vestonice is wearing nothing but stockings or thigh-
high boots and suggests that a figurine from Kostenki 1 in
Russia is engaging in “bondage” (Guthrie 2005:365, figure is
not numbered; but see Soffer et al. [2002] and Joyce [2008]
for a discussion of the variation in textiles and clothing de-
picted on figurines). As Bahn notes, “people often see what
they want to see in rock art, and I think it is safe to say that
few of Guthrie’s [2005] interpretations would be readily
accepted by most specialists in Ice Age art” (2006:575).
570 American Anthropologist • Vol. 116, No. 3 • September 2014
FIGURE 6. Mammoth (top) and bison (bottom) statuettes from the nearby
Aurignacian site of Geißenklösterle (photo credit: P. Frankenstein, H. Zwi-
etasch; Landesmuseum Württemberg, Stuttgart; photo courtesy of the Lan-
desmuseum Württemberg, Stuttgart). These blocky statuettes are described
as being depicted in a “symmetrical and neutral” fashion (Porr 2010:99,
100, see figures 6–7).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Social Consequences of the “Venus” Hypothesis
In this article we have argued that, whether consciously
or unconsciously, some of the most influential scholars in
Paleolithic archaeology have tended to make assumptions
about the meanings and makers of Paleolithic art that are
problematic. By embedding such assumptions deep into our
evolutionary past—(1) that the authors and intended audi-
ences of media or art are heterosexual males and (2) that
men are subjects and have agency while women are objects
and do not—such voices of authority naturalize them. The
perspective that sexual objectification is a natural, evolved
behavior is in turn often eagerly accepted and amplified by
the popular media.
A large body of research in social science suggests that
the control of perspective and the objectification of women
in modern media and social practice are not harmless. Men
viewing sexualized images of women are more likely to per-
ceive 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 “nar-
row their social presence” or withdraw in social interactions
(Saguy et al. 2010). It can be argued that by turning this ob-
jectifying “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?
The question remains as to why the Venus hypothesis contin-
ues to be so pervasive in both scholarly and popular contexts,
despite the existence of pointed and reflexive feminist cri-
tiques (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, dis-
cussed below). Furthermore, much of the recent scholarship
discussing the figurines (other than the announcements of
new discoveries, e.g., Conard 2009)—including those pub-
lications 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 psychohistori-
cal 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 un-
questioningly accept and echo pre-1990s interpretations that
the figurines functioned in context primarily as sexual ob-
jects, 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 fig-
urines 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 ques-
tioned binary gender categorization and heteronormativity
 Nowell and Chang • Science, Media, and Upper Paleolithic Figurines
and has focused on the construction of identity, materializ-
ing 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 ex-
ample, 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 possi-
ble explanation for the persistence of the Venus hypothe-
sis is that many of the most cogent and relevant critiques
of such gendered interpretations in a broader archaeolog-
ical 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 understand-
ing 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 indi-
cators of action (Joyce 2008). The roles of such figurines in
Paleolithic society may also be illuminated by studies of ar-
tifact modification, alteration, repair, decoration, and reuse
(Tringham and Conkey 1998). It is critical to conceptualize
these figurines as products of local histories that reflect cul-
tural 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 neces-
sary 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 exam-
ples 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 “porno-
graphic” (as specifically suggested by some academics and the
popular media) when compared to bison and mammoth fig-
urines from the nearby Aurignacian site of Geißenklösterle
(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 char-
acteristics.
In this regard, Rebecca Farbstein’s research on Up-
per Paleolithic figurines from Eastern Europe (e.g., 2010,
2011a, 2011b; Farbstein et al. 2012) represents an impor-
tant new direction in the study of Pleistocene visual cultures.
571
Building on earlier work by Margaret Conkey (e.g., 1993),
Marcia-Anne Dobres (2000, 2001), and others, Farbstein
argues for an approach that combines an anthropology of
technology with the concept of chaı̂ne opératoire (“operational
sequence”; see also Gaydarska et al. 2007 for this approach
applied to Copper Age figurines). This perspective allows
for the study of relationships among technology, society,
aesthetics, local knowledge, materiality, symbolic behavior,
decision making, and the development of communities of
practice. As Farbstein notes, her approach is one that “posi-
tions art production within its social context and recognizes
that the physical qualities of handmade figurines result from
individual and group considerations of material properties,
acquisition strategies and technical choices” (2010:9). Rather
than interpreting the figurines in a vacuum, Farbstein cloaks
them within layers of context by considering such anthropo-
morphic figures alongside zoomorphic figures; by studying
figurative and nonfigurative images together; by compar-
ing artifacts made of similar and different materials; and, in
some cases, by recording more than 100 distinct technical
and stylistic characteristics of the figurines.
The resulting data have permitted Farbstein not only to
identify broad social and technical traditions across cultural
landscapes but also to tease out what she has referred to as
“nuanced differences” between closely related settlements
(Farbstein 2011b:142). For example, Farbstein (2010) an-
alyzed ivory figurines from Pavlov 1 and Dolni Vestonice
1, two sites in the Czech Republic dating to the early Up-
per Paleolithic that are normally considered to be tightly
linked culturally. Through her analysis, Farbstein was able
to demonstrate that the people working with ivory at these
sites conceived of and manufactured figurines in distinct
ways. This close reading of the archaeological materials al-
lowed her to demonstrate that even though these Upper
Paleolithic peoples shared a unified cultural identity to a
large extent, local traditions and values were dynamic and
could differ based on local histories. Farbstein (2010:9)
demonstrates how figurines can be a window onto or a
“physical expression” of a society’s priorities and interests
and, in this way, she is advancing the study of Paleolithic
figurines.
In conclusion, there are many legitimate scientific ques-
tions that we can ask about Upper Paleolithic figurines, but
there are equally as many (perhaps more emotionally com-
pelling) questions about their meanings and cultural roles
that cannot be answered with the kinds of data that are
currently available. By not challenging, and therefore tac-
itly accepting, questionable interpretations and assumptions
about the artifacts and what they meant to Paleolithic peo-
ple, many paleoanthropologists embed current constructs
of gender and gender relations into the past, possibly with
negative social effects. The interpretation of these figurines
through a sexual lens is problematic for many reasons but
most of all because their possible “erotic” significance is a
hypothesis that should be tested rather than a meaning that
can be assumed. As Nicholas Conard observed, “how we
572 American Anthropologist • Vol. 116, No. 3 • September 2014
interpret [the Hohle Fels figurine] tells us just as much about
ourselves as about people 40,000 years ago” (2009).6
April Nowell Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 2Y2; anowell@uvic.ca
http://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/anthropology/people/faculty/
nowellapril.php
Melanie L. Chang Department of Anthropology, University of
Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W
2Y2; mlchang@uvic.ca
NOTES
Acknowledgments. The authors gratefully acknowledge the fol-
lowing 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. Franken-
stein; Chris Gash; Löic Hamon; The State Hermitage Mu-
seum (Russia); H. Jensen; Landesmuseum Württemberg, Stuttgart
(Germany); Moravské zemské muzeum (Czech Republic); Musée
d´Archéologie 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 communica-
tion, December 11, 2013).
2. In a 2011 study, Dixson and Dixson asked 161 Australian under-
graduate students (both men and women) to assign ages and rate
the attractiveness of images of 14 Upper Paleolithic figurines, in-
cluding 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 World’s Oldest.” (See
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520068,00.html, ac-
cessed 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):201–220.
Adovasio, James M., Olga Soffer, and Bohuslav Kléma
1996 Upper Palaeolithic Fibre Technology: Interlaced Woven
Finds from Pavlov I, Czech Republic, c. 26,000 Years Ago.
Antiquity 70(269):526–534.
Augusta, Josef
1960 Prehistoric Man. London: Hamlyn.
Bahn, Paul G.
1986 No Sex Please, We’re Aurignacians. Rock Art Research
3(2):99–120.
2006 Sex and Violence in Rock Art: Are Cave Paintings Re-
ally Little More Than the Testosterone-Fuelled Scribblings of
Young Men? Review of The Nature of Paleolithic Art by Dale
R. Guthrie. Nature 441(7093):575–576.
Bahn, Paul G., and Paul Pettitt
2013 Review of Ice Age Art: Arrival of the Modern Mind. Antiquity
87(337):905–908.
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 Archae-
ology 25(3):321–331.
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. 117–126. McDon-
ald 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. 244–264. Blackwell Companions to Anthropology
series. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bar-Yosef, Ofer
2002 The Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Annual Review of An-
thropology 31:363–393.
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. 202–214. 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):27–42.
1997 Native American Genders and Sexualities: Beyond Anthro-
pological Models and Misrepresentations. In Two-Spirit Peo-
ple: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spiri-
tuality. Sue-Ellen Jacobs, Wesley Thomas, and Sabine Lang,
eds. Pp. 284–294. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois
Press.
 Nowell and Chang • Science, Media, and Upper Paleolithic Figurines
2009 Trans Identities and Contingent Masculinities: Being
Tombois in Everyday Practice. Feminist Studies 35(3):454–
480.
Blue, Violet
2009 Are More Women OK with Watching Porn? CNN.com, July
24. http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/07/
24/o.women.watching.porn/, accessed May 11, 2014.
Bullot, Nicolas J., and Rolf Reber
2013 A Psycho-Historical Research Program for the Integrative
Science of Art. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(2):163–180.
Buss, David M.
1994 The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New
York: Basic.
2004 Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind.
Second edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
2006 Strategies of Human Mating. Psychological Topics
15(2):239–260.
Caulfield, Timothy
2004 Biotechnology and the Popular Press: Hype and the Selling
of Science. Trends in Biotechnology 22(7):337–339.
Chappell, Bill
2013 Germany Offers Third Gender Option on Birth Certificates.
The Two Way: Breaking News from NPR, November 1.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/01/
242366812/germany-offers-third-gender-option-on-birth-
certificates, accessed May 11, 2014.
Chazine, Jean-Michel
1999 Préhistoire: Découverte de grottes ornées à Bornéo [Prehis-
tory: The discovery of decorated caves in Borneo]. Archéologia
352:12–19.
Chazine, Jean-Michel, and Luc-Henri Fage
1999a La Ligne de Wallace a-t-elle été franchie par les artistes
des temps préhistoriques? Deux nouvelles grottes a ornées
à Bornéo en Septembre 1998 [Did prehistoric artists cross
the Wallace Line? Two new decorated caves in Borneo in
September 1998]. Karstologia 32:39–46.
1999b Deux nouvelles grottes ornées à Bornéo [Two new deco-
rated caves in Borneo]. International Newsletter on Rock Art
(INORA) 23:1–3.
Chazine, Jean-Michel, and Arnaud Noury
2006 Sexual Determination of Hand Stencils on the Main Panel of
the Gua Masri II Cave (East-Kalimantan/Borneo–Indonesia).
International Newsletter on Rock Art (INORA) 44:21–26.
Chivers, M. L., G. Rieger, E. Latty, and J. M. Bailey
2004 A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal. Psy-
chological Science 15(11):736–744.
Clottes, Jean, and Jean-Michel Geneste
2012 Twelve Years of Research in Chauvet Cave: Methodology
and Main Results. In A Companion to Rock Art. Jo McDonald
and Peter Veth, eds. Pp. 583–604. Blackwell Companions to
Anthropology series. Oxford: Blackwell.
Collins, Desmond, and John Onians
1978 The Origins of Art. Art History 1(1):1–25.
Conard, Nicholas J.
2003 Palaeolithic Ivory Sculptures from Southwestern Germany
and the Origins of Figurative Art. Nature 426(6968):830–832.
573
2009 Female Figurine from the Basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels
Cave in Southwestern Germany. Nature 459(7244):248–252.
Conard, Nicholas J., Maria Malina, and Susanne C. Münzel
2009 New Flutes Document the Earliest Musical Tradition in
Southwestern Germany. Nature 460(7256):737–740.
Conkey, Margaret W.
1993 Humans as Materialists and Symbolists: Image Making in
the Upper Paleolithic. In The Origin and Evolution of Humans
and Humanness. D. Tab Rasmussen, ed. Pp. 95–118. Boston:
Jones and Bartlett.
1997 Mobilizing Ideologies: Paleolithic “Art,” Gender Trouble,
and Thinking about Alternatives. In Women in Human Evolu-
tion. Lori D. Hager, ed. Pp. 173–207. London: Routledge.
Conkey, Margaret, and Joan Gero
1991 Tensions, Pluralities, and Engendering Archaeology: An In-
troduction to Women and Prehistory. In Engendering Archae-
ology: Women and Prehistory. Joan M. Gero and Margaret
W. Conkey, eds. Pp. 3–30. Oxford: Blackwell.
Conkey, Margaret W., and Janet D. Spector
1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archae-
ological Method and Theory 7:1–38.
Conkey, Margaret W., and Ruth E. Tringham
1995 Archaeology and the Goddess: Exploring the Contours of
Feminist Archaeology. In Feminisms in the Academy: Rethink-
ing the Disciplines. Domna C. Stanton and Abigail J. Stewart,
eds. Pp. 199–247. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cook, Jill
2013 Ice Age Art: Arrival of the Modern Mind. London: British
Museum.
Creed, Gerald
1984 Sexual Subordination: Institutionalized Homosexuality and
Social Control in Melanesia. Ethnology 23(3):157–176.
Curry, Andrew
2009 The Earliest Pornography? ScienceNow, May 13.
http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/2009/05
/earliest-pornography, accessed May 11, 2014.
Delporte, Henri
1979 Image de la femme dans l’art préhistorique [Images of women
in prehistoric art]. Paris: Picard.
1993 Gravettian Female Figurines: A Regional Survey. In Before
Lascaux: The Complex Record of the Early Upper Paleolithic.
Heidi Knecht, Anne Pike-Tay, and Randall White, eds. Pp.
243–257. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Devore, Holly
1989 Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality. Bloom-
ington: Indiana University Press.
Dixson, Alan F., and Barnaby J. Dixson
2011 Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols
of Fertility or Attractiveness? Journal of Anthropology
2011. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/janthro/2011/
569120/, accessed May 11, 2014.
Dobres, Marcia-Anne
1992a Re-Considering Venus Figurines: A Feminist-Inspired Re-
Analysis. In Ancient Images, Ancient Thought: The Archaeol-
ogy of Ideology—Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Chacmool
Conference. A. Sean Goldsmith, Sandra Garvie, David Selin,
574 American Anthropologist • Vol. 116, No. 3 • September 2014
and Jeannette Smith, eds. Pp. 245–262. Calgary: Archaeolog-
ical Association of the University of Calgary.
1992b Representations of Palaeolithic Visual Imagery: Simulacra
and Their Alternatives. Kroeber Anthropological Society Pa-
pers 73–74:1–25.
2000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Frame-
work 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. 47–76. Amerind
Foundation New World Studies series. Albuquerque: Univer-
sity of New Mexico Press.
Eaton, Randall
1978 The Evolution of Trophy Hunting. Carnivore 1(1):110–121.
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 So-
cial Practice in Pavlovian Portable Art. In Anthropomorphic
and Zoomorphic Miniature Figures in Eurasia, Africa and
Mesoamerica: Morphology, Materiality, Technology, Func-
tion and Context. Dragos Gheorghiu and Ann Cyphers, eds.
Pp. 9–16. British Archaeology Reports, 2138. Oxford: Ar-
chaeopress.
2011a Technologies of Art: A Critical Reassessment of Pavlovian
Art and Society, Using Chaı̂ne Opératoire Method and Theory.
Current Anthropology 52(3):401–432.
2011b The Significance of Social Gestures and Technologies of
Embellishment in Paleolithic Portable Art. Journal of Archae-
ological Method and Theory 18(2):125–146.
Farbstein, Rebecca, D. Radić, D. Brajković, and Preston T. Miracle
2012 First Epigravettian Ceramic Figurines from Eu-
rope (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):92–107.
Gaydarska, Bisserka, John Chapman, Ana Raduntcheva, and Bistra
Koleva
2007 The Châine Opératoire Approach to Prehistoric Figurines:
An Example from Dolnoslav, Bulgaria. In Image and Imagina-
tion: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation. Colin
Renfrew and Iain Morley, eds. Pp. 171–184. McDonald In-
stitute Monographs. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Ar-
chaeological Research.
Gimbutas, Marija
1982 The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Guthrie, R. Dale
1979 Ethological Observations from Palaeolithic Art. In La con-
tribution de la zoologie et de l’ethologie à l’interprétation
de l’art des peuples chasseurs préhistoriques [Zoological and
ethological contributions to the interpretation of prehistoric
hunter-gatherer art]. H.-G. Bandi, W. Huber, M.-R. Sauter,
and B. Sitter, eds. Pp. 35–74. Fribourg: Éditions Universi-
taires.
2005 The Nature of Paleolithic Art. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Hays-Gilpin, Kelley A.
2004 Ambiguous Images: Gender and Rock Art. Walnut Creek:
AltaMira.
Heflick, Nathan A., and Jamie L. Goldenberg
2009 Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence That Objectification
Causes Women to Be Perceived as Less Competent and
Less Fully Human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy 45(3):598–601.
Henss, Ronald
1995 Waist-to-Hip Ratio and Attractiveness: Replication and Ex-
tension. Personality and Individual Differences 19(4):479–
488.
Jacobs, Sue-Ellen, Wesley Thomas, and Sabine Lang, eds.
1997 Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sex-
uality, and Spirituality. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Jonaitis, Aldona
2007 Art, Adolescence, and Testosterone in the Paleolithic. The
Quarterly Review of Biology 82(2):127–130.
Joyce, Rosemary A.
2008 Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives: Sex, Gender, and Archaeol-
ogy. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Kalra, Gurvinder
2012 Hijras: The Unique Transgender Culture of India. Interna-
tional Journal of Culture and Mental Health 5(2):121–126.
Kehoe, Alice B.
1991 No Possible, Probable Shadow of Doubt. Antiquity
65(246):129–131.
King, Robert J.
2013 Baby Got Back: Some Brief Observations on Obesity in
Ancient Female Figurines—Limited Support for Waist to Hip
Ratio Constant as a Signal of Fertility. Journal of Obesity and
Weight Loss Therapy 3:159.
Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin
1948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders.
Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul
H. Gebhard
1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders.
Kirkness, Jennifer
1999 Upper Paleolithic Female Imagery: The Masculine Gaze,
the Archaeological Gaze and the Tenets of the Archaeological
Discipline. Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal
of Anthropology 7(1):7–18.
Knapp, A. B., and L. Meskell
1997 Bodies of Evidence on Prehistoric Cyprus. Cambridge Ar-
chaeological Journal 7(2):183–204.
Kohn, Marek
2013 Ice Age Art, Arrival of the Modern Mind, British
Museum, London. Financial Times, February 6.
 Nowell and Chang • Science, Media, and Upper Paleolithic Figurines
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/28ea8196-7058-11e2-
85d0-00144feab49a.html#axzz31TnuPc2c, accessed May 11,
2014.
Kohn, Marek, and Steven Mithen
1999 Handaxes: Products of Sexual Selection. Antiquity
73(281):518–526.
Kokkinidou, D.
1997 Body Imagery in the Aegean Neolithic: Ideological Implica-
tions of Anthropomorphic Figurines. In Invisible Peoples and
Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Ar-
chaeology. Jenny Moore and Eleanor Scott, eds. Pp. 168–177.
London: Leicester University Press.
Kukkonen, Tuuli M., Yitzchak M. Binik, Rhonda Amsel, and Serge
Carrier
2007 Thermography as a Physiological Measure of Sexual Arousal
in Both Men and Women. Journal of Sexual Medicine 4(1):93–
105.
Kulick, Don
1998 Travestı́: Sex, Gender, and Culture among Brazilian Trans-
gendered Prostitutes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kurtén, Björn
1986 How To Deep-Freeze a Mammoth. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Kvavadze, Eliso, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Anna Belfer-Cohen,
Elisabetta Boaretto, Nino Jakeli, Zinovi Matskevich, and Ten-
giz Meshveliani
2009 30,000-Year-Old Wild Flax Fibers. Science 325
(5946):1359.
Laming-Emperaire, Annette
1962 La signification de l’art rupestre paléolithique [The meaning
of paleolithic rock art]. Paris: Picard.
Lancaster, Roger
2003 The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Media.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Laver, J.
1948 Homage to Venus. London: Faber and Faber.
Leroi-Gourhan, André
1966 La religion des cavernes: Magie ou métaphysique? [The re-
ligion of the caves: Magic or metaphysics?]. Sciences et Avenir
228.
1967 Treasures of Prehistoric Art. New York: Abrams.
1978 The Mysterious Markings in the Paleolithic Cave Art of
France and Spain. CNRS Research 8:26–32.
Lewin, Ellen
1993 Lesbian Mothers: Accounts of Gender in American Culture.
Anthropology of Contemporary Issues series. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Lorblanchet, Michel
2010 Art pariétal: Grottes ornées du Quercy [Parietal art: The
decorated caves of Quercy]. Arles: Editions du Rouergue.
Loughnan, Steve, Nick Haslam, Tess Murnane, Jeroen Vaes,
Catherine Reynolds, and Caterina Suitner
2010 Objectification Leads to Depersonalization: The Denial of
Mind and Moral Concern to Objectified Others. European
Journal of Social Psychology 40(5):709–717.
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):227–275.
Mellars, Paul
2009 Origins of the Female Image. Nature 459(7244):176–177.
Molnar, Petra
2011 The Venus: Mother or Woman? Manitoba Anthropology
29:1–8.
Mulvey, Laura
1975 Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen 16(3):6–18.
Nakamura, Carolyn, and Lynn Meskell
2009 Articulate Bodies: Forms and Figures at Çatalhöyük. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory 16(3):205–230.
Nelson, Sarah M.
1990 Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic “Venus” Figurines and
Archaeological Mythology. In Powers of Observation: Alter-
native Views in Archeology. Sarah M. Nelson and Alice B.
Kehoe, eds. Pp. 11–22. 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):53–64.
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:46–49.
Onians, John
2000 The Biological and Geographical Bases of Cultural Borders:
The Case of the Earliest European Prehistoric Art. In Bor-
ders in Art: Revisiting Kunstgeographie. Katarzyna Murawska-
Muthesius, ed. Pp. 27–33. 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):11–25.
Page, Lewis
2009 Archaeologists Unearth Oldest Known 3D Pornog-
raphy. 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 période glyptique [The site of Brassempouy and human
statuettes from the Upper Paleolithic period]. L’Anthropologie
6:129–151.
Pinker, Steven
1997 How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton.
576 American Anthropologist • Vol. 116, No. 3 • September 2014
Porr, Martin
2010 Palaeolithic Art as Cultural Memory: A Case Study of the
Aurignacian Art of Southwest Germany. Cambridge Archaeo-
logical Journal 20(1):87–108.
Prine, Elizabeth
2000 Searching for Third Genders: Towards a Prehistory of Do-
mestic Spaces in Middle Missouri Villages. In Archaeologies of
Sexuality. Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, eds. Pp.
197–219. London: Routledge.
Rice, Patricia C.
1981 Prehistoric Venuses, Symbols of Motherhood or Woman-
hood? Journal of Anthropological Research 37(4):402–414.
Rudman, Laurie A., and Eugene Borgida
1995 The Afterglow of Construct Accessibility: The Behavioral
Consequences of Priming Men to View Women as Sexual Ob-
jects. 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):417–426.
Russell, Pamela
1991 Men Only? The Myths about European Paleolithic Artists.
In The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the 22nd Chac-
mool Conference. Dale Walde and Noreen D. Willows, eds.
Pp. 346–351. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the Uni-
versity of Calgary.
1993 Forme et imagination: L’image féminine dans L’Europe
paléolithique [Form and imagination: The female image in
paleolithic Europe]. Paléo 5(5):375–388.
1998 The Paleolithic Mother-Goddess: Fact or Fiction? In Reader
in Gender Archaeology. Kelley Hays-Gilpin, and David S.
Whitley, eds. Pp. 261–268. 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):178–182.
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):152–160.
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 38:9–17.
2006a The Study of Finger Flutings. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 16(3):281–295.
2006b Evidence for Cave Marking by Palaeolithic Children. An-
tiquity 80(310):937–947.
2006c Finger Flutings in Chamber A1 of Rouffignac Cave, France.
Rock Art Research 23(2):179–198.
Shields, Rachel
2010 India’s “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-of-
public-acceptance-1905797.html, accessed May 12, 2014.
Shuchman, Miriam, and Michael S. Wilkes
1997 Medical Scientists and Health News Reporting: A
Case of Miscommunication. Annals of Internal Medicine
126(12):976–982.
Singh, Devendra
1993 Adaptive Significance of Female Physical Attractiveness:
Role of Waist-to-Hip Ratio. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 65(2):293–307.
2006 Universal Allure of the Hourglass Figure: An Evolutionary
Theory of Female Physical Attractiveness. Clinics in Plastic
Surgery 33(3):359–370.
Singh, Devendra, and Suwardi Luis
1995 Ethnic and Gender Consensus for the Effect of Waist-to-
Hip Ratio on Judgment of Women’s Attractiveness. Human
Nature 6(1):51–65.
Singh, Devendra, and Dorian Singh
2006 Role of Body Fat and Body Shape on Judgment of Female
Health and Attractiveness: An Evolutionary Perspective. Psy-
chological Topics 15(2):331–350.
Snow, Dean R.
2006 Sexual Dimorphism in Upper Palaeolithic Hand Stencils.
Antiquity 80(308):390–404.
2013 Sexual Dimorphism in European Upper Paleolithic Cave
Art. American Antiquity 78(4):746–761.
Soffer, Olga
2004 Recovering Perishable Technologies through Use Wear
on Tools: Preliminary Evidence for Upper Paleolithic
Weaving and Net Making. Current Anthropology 45(3):
407–413.
Soffer, Olga, James M. Adovasio, and David C. Hyland
2000 The “Venus” Figurines: Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and
Status in the Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology
41(4):511–537.
2002 Perishable Technologies and Invisible People: Nets, Baskets,
and “Venus” Wear ca. 26,000 BP. In Enduring Records: The
Environmental and Cultural Heritage of Wetlands. Barbara A.
Purdy, ed. Pp. 233–245. Oxford: Oxbow.
Soffer, Olga, Pamela Vandiver, Bohuslav Klı́ma, and Jiri Svoboda
1993a The Pyrotechnology of Performance Art: Moravian
Venuses and Wolverines. In Before Lascaux: The Complex
Record of the Early Upper Paleolithic. Heidi Knecht, Anne
Pike-Tay, and Randall Keith White, eds. Pp. 259–276. Boca
Raton: CRC Press.
Soffer, Olga, Pamela Vandiver, Martin Oliva, and Ludik Seitl
1993b Case of the Exploding Figurines. Archaeology 46(1):36–
39.
Sun, The
2009 The World’s First Page 3 Girl. The Sun, May 14:23.
Thompson, Ashley E., and Lucia F. O’Sullivan
2012 Gender Differences in Associations of Sexual and
Romantic Stimuli: Do Young Men Really Prefer Sex
over Romance? Archives of Sexual Behavior 41(4):949–
957.
Tringham, Ruth, and Margaret Conkey
1998 Rethinking Figurines: A Critical View from Archaeology
of Gimbutas, the “Goddess” and Popular Culture. In Ancient
 Nowell and Chang • Science, Media, and Upper Paleolithic Figurines
Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence. Lucy Goodison and
Christine Morris, eds. Pp. 22–45. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Tripp, Allison J., and Naomi E. Schmidt
2013 Analyzing Fertility and Attraction in the Paleolithic: The
Venus Figurines. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology
of Eurasia 41(2):54–60.
Valladas, Hélène, Jean Clottes, Jean-Michel Geneste, Maria A.
Garcia, M. Arnold, H. Cachier, and N. Tisnérat-Laborde
2001 Palaeolithic Paintings: Evolution of Prehistoric Cave Art.
Nature 413(6855):479.
Vanhaeren, Marian, and Francesco d’Errico
2006 Aurignacian Ethno-Linguistic Geography of Europe Re-
vealed by Personal Ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Sci-
ence 33(8):1105–1128.
Voss, Barbara L.
2008 Sexuality Studies in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthro-
pology 37:317–336.
Weber, Peter
2014 Facebook Offers Users 56 New Gender Options:
Here’s What They Mean. The Week, February 14.
View publication stats
577
http://theweek.com/article/index/256474/facebook-
offers-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):251–304.
White, Randall, Romain Mensan, Raphaëlle Bourrillon, Catherine
Cretin, Thomas F. G. Higham, Amy E. Clark, Matthew L.
Sisk, et al.
2012 Context and Dating of Aurignacian Vulvar Representa-
tions from Abri Castanet, France. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
109(22):8450–8455.
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 Associa-
tion 11(5):1250–1257.