Some suggests that archaeology as a self-serving discipline is pointless, and the public should play a very active role in understanding and preserving archaeological sites. The so-called more modern approach to the public interest differs somewhat to this stereotypical old fashioned view, which summons images of antiquarians investigating history as a romantic and elitist pursuit. The change in our view of the role archaeology plays in society has paralleled the advancement of our archaeological knowledge. Many archaeologists now believe in the ‘democratisation’ of archaeology (Ascherson 2004).
In fact there are many ways of defining the term ‘past’, depending on what scale we are considering it on. For instance, the past can exist in our minds as an independent entity, using the term to denote a specific point in time, in history. However, we may also consider the past in relation to others and ourselves, as explained by Copeland (Copeland 2004, 140). Our individual personal perception of it will be referred to throughout the text as individual past. In addition to this, we as part of a community or nation experience a common past, in our tribal history. This common past once again will have very different meaning to us and our tribe, as such, compared to its meaning to someone with a different common past. Ascherson also brings up the dichotomy of the archaeologists’ understanding of truths about the past, and the somewhat pseudoarchaeologies which the public might hold as truths, even in the face of archaeology not being able to prove these ideas, or even contradicting them, a subject close to the heart of many Pagans. In an extreme sense, we can liken this to the legal battle over the acceptance of Native American pasts as a viable world-view, as opposed to the scientific view, although this is an extreme example of this ‘past truths’ debate, we can see more prominently here the idea that archaeologists are taking away people’s mythological and personal view, and replacing it with their own version of their past, their ‘scientifically true’ common past of their people as a whole. However, some archaeologists down-play this intrusion, viewing the public’s interest in archaeology as merely for ‘education, entertainment and countryside recreation’ (Copeland 2004, 133), suggesting that they may believe that the relevance of mythological past to 21st century people is now questionable, so unimportant. However, we now see pseudoarchaeologies appearing in more than the traditional mythological form in Britain and Ireland, with Pagan religions and associated beliefs about the truth in science itself, and therefore the truth in science-based theories. This may lead to more romanicised pseudoarchaeologies appearing in people’s own individual pasts, a new factor archaeologists are now confronted by when dealing with public opinion and interpretation, but who’s truth, in such discussions, is the ‘right’ truth?
The public sector is becoming increasingly important in the issues of the past. The government are relying more and more on public support, considering their opinions more often when making decisions involving their heritage. If we refer to the proposed development of the M3 routeway through the Tara area, we see the Environmental Impact Study of the area advises that, during considerations ‘the public was invited to take part in a number of consultation sessions during the development of the proposed scheme. These consultations were advertised in the Meath Chronicle, the national press and by the display of notices in public venues in the locality.’ (Meath County Council 2005, section 1.7.1.). Although there is no assessment apparent of the incorporation of public opinion in this case, it highlights the fact that people are being encouraged to take an interest in heritage issues. In response to this movement, however, a recent TAG conference was dedicated to examining public images of archaeological interpretation and practice, whether these are becoming increasingly distant from (or even inversions of) academic discourse and field practice’ (TAG 2005).
It is often suggested that the West is seen as an archetypal Irish landscape (Nash 1993). This has been encompassed at Carrowmore, where the traditional Irish identity is pushed, as with the newspaper article noted above, suggesting national identity and superiority through a long history of occupation (O’Sullivan 1998). Here we now see a move, in keeping with recent theoretical research, to computerised audiovisual displays, as opposed to traditional notice board effect presentation of the history and value of the site, due to the public wanting a more exciting and challenging way of interacting with the past (McTiernan pers. comm.. 2005, Carrowmore centre manager). At this site we can also see the methods of conservation, if we compare figure 6, tomb 51 in 2002, and figure 7, the same tomb in 2005, after extensive reconstruction of the mound. This choice was made due to the importance put on excavation of this major site, yet reconstructed to show the public the monumental constructions made by the Irish ancestors.
However, some organisations perpetuate such pseudo-archaeologies. Such parts of the industry are indeed, entirely business orientated, and our heritage is quickly becoming the ‘heritage business’, seen at commercial heritage attractions like ‘Shannon Heritage’, where we are encouraged on the ‘Celtic Journey’ (Shannon Heritage 2006). The question is whether we should bring our own role in interpreting the past, and our own work in line with this economically driven mentality. Some interpretative centres like the National Irish Heritage Park, push a ‘specific view of Ireland’ (Maura Bell, pers. comm., general manager), we find that they offer a reconstructed ‘Celtic farm’, and their literature refers to the ‘Celtic Age’ (Culleton 1999, 12). Absurdly, such ‘national’ sites are often the most successful, as they are using good marketing to make money. Smaller regional centres, like the Dan O Hara Heritage Centre, do not push a specific view of Ireland or the past (Nora Walsh, pers. comm..2006, centre manager), but allow people to identify their own concept of past, yet many of these have a low public profile and have little impact on the surrounding economy. It suggests that if archaeologists wish to rival these historical inaccuracies, they too must ‘play the corporate game’, as it were, and invest time and money into marketing strategies to equal the tourist value of these large commercial heritage sites? Staff at the Carrowmore interpretative centre have recently chosen to do this, by incorporating computerised interactive displays ‘in keeping with the times’ (Austin McTiernan 2006, pers. comm.). Such modernisation of display attractions help to do this, mirroring the interactivity offered at larger heritage sites, where we find elaborate reconstructions, heritage ‘trails’ and the like.
Recent work (Fáilte Ireland 2006) suggests that people are turning away from interpretative centres, in favour of more natural locations, were we see that much more time is spent at parks, gardens and at wildlife attractions. This may suggest that we should consider preserving the natural landscape around a site more fully, to enhance attractiveness to visitors. However, the rise in interpretative centre visits itself shows that this is still a valuable part of the experience. Maybe this should encourage archaeologists to use visitors’ centres, but position them a good distance from the site, to maintain the atmosphere of the natural landscape, and also incorporate wildlife walks at archaeological sites, as an additional valued attraction. More information, and more detailed studies, would allow for better adaptation by interpretative centres to public needs, answering questions like whether catering and shops should be placed near to a site, or if this detracts from the experience for the types of visitors attending such places.
At present, one can only assess the political and social framework governing the actions of both individuals and groups in a constructivist sense (Copeland 2004), with their own inherent biases, and in turn, limitations in their own assessment. On my own excursions to sites, I encountered many that had been recently encroached upon by new buildings, or even destroyed, to make way for new developments of ‘ribbon housing’, new business centres and motorways, which I put down to the rearing of the ‘Celtic Tiger’s’ questionable head. On the way to these sites, and even more disturbing, was the number of freshly flattened fields passed, all linked by one sight – notices for granted planning permission by the Officer of Public Works. No firm statistics on the destruction of monuments is available, yet one thing remains certain: it is extensive. Legislation appears slack, and insufficient to combat this problem. Campaigning also seems to have little impact, evident from the Tara case. It seems inevitable that we must come to terms with the infamous Irish economy, and work with it.
By assessing the trends in how heritage has been viewed and treated in the recent past, we can identify the biases in archaeological approaches, and how these can be a direct result of contemporary political and social themes. In effect, this means that such responses will directly affect what will remain of the archaeological record in the future, and how it is viewed. Therefore, it is necessary for us, the public, to concern ourselves with how and why we care about our past, making sure that we have a voice. If we learn how to utilise our opinions, we can begin to have more of a direct influence on the preservation of the sacred sites which are the material manifestations of our ancestral legacy.
McDonald, F. 2004. ‘Tearing Up the Past’, in The Irish Times, 27 November.
Meath County Council. 2005.http://www.meath.ie/
Merriman, N. (ed.) 2004. Public Archaeology. London: Routledge
Nash, C. 1993. ‘The West of Ireland and Irish Identity’, in O’Connor, B. & Cronin,
M. (ed.s), Tourism in Ireland. A Critical Analysis. Cork. pp. 86 – 112.
O’Sullivan, 1998 (21/08/98). ‘Co. Sligo Tomb Could Be the World’s Oldest Building’, in The Irish Times, courtesy of www.ireland.com
Stevens, P. 2003. Archaeology, Heritage and Tourism: An Irish Perspective,
from http://www.archaeology.org.au: The National Trust of Australia (WA).
TAG. 2005. http://www.gla.ac.uk (Accessed 2006.)
Tarawatch. 2006. http://www.hilloftara.info/ (Accessed 2006.)
Tóth-Jones, D. S. 2006. The Changing Face of Ireland: An assessment of the preservation and presentation of megalithic tombs in the Republic.
(Unpublished BA dissertation; University of Liverpool.)
Whiteley, P. M. 2002. ‘Archaeology and Oral Tradition: The Scientific Importance of Dialogue’, in American Antiquity, 67/3, pp. 405 – 415.
The placing of figurines in pits might have represented some kind of female ancestor cult, or belief in a feminine deity who was called upon to watch over the hearth. This idea comes from comparisons with the figurines and beliefs of Inuit and Siberian people, and the Tungus practise of putting an image of a “hearth spirit” in their tents, who they envisioned as a cunning elderly woman. Russian scholars have interpreted these Russian Gravettian sites as having similar practices in which the women held the role as “Woman- Mother”, having many important functions such as keeper of the home, fire, and ancestresses being venerated (Z Abramova, 1967:89, cited in Hadingham, 1980:225).
The Balzi Rossi figurines, in common with many Gravettian figurines, have large breasts, protruding buttocks and stomachs. Some of the figurines however, are unusual. “The Nun”, is an ambiguous figure wearing what looks like some kind of hooded cloak, with a possible male chest (Bison and Bolduc, 1994:461) and a less defined vulva. Another figurine named “The Hermaphrodite” has an upper female body, with male sex organs (Bisson and Bolduc, 1994:461). Mussi et al interpret this as being a second head (in Hunters of the Golden Age, 2000:106).
Two of the figurines -The Doublet and The Bicephalous (figure 10) appear to have been fixed onto some kind of support to be displayed (Mussi et al, 2000:1110). These two figurines are double headed, and in the case of The Doublet also double bodied and is a combination of a woman and an animal. Libor Balák sees it as a snake (http://www.iabrno.cz/agalerie/gravetta.htm), and figure 11 shows his interpretation of the unity of the snake and woman.
Bisson and Bolduc see The Doublet as some kind of canine perhaps a wolf, wolverine or fox (1994:465). The woman’s face they state, appears to have been “deliberately obliterated” by chiselling. This deliberate removal of the face might indicate the use of this figurine in some ritual. Perhaps it was to do with some kind of identity of a woman in association with the animal and her face was removed when she was seen to have “merged” with its spirit?
Mussi et al, have proposed an interesting theory for these figurines, which they call “palaeo- morphing”. They propose that in the Gravettian there existed some complex beliefs pertaining to multiple levels of reality and what was being shown in the figurines was the act of transformation (2000:110). They make reference to anthropo- zoomorphic figurines at Kostenki 1 to support their theory (2000:111). They are of the opinion that it was believed that some beings, probably women, had the ability to shift from one level of reality to another, to act as “intermediaries between different worlds” (2000:112). They see it as evidence for some kind of “proto shamanism”, where there was belief in the ability to shift into other dimensions (2000:120).
Conclusions.
The Gravettian saw a worsening of the climate (the glacial maximum) so perhaps tribal/clan networks became more crucial for survival – trading for food resources, materials and cementing of alliances to act as security. Decline began around 25,000 years ago and by 18,000 years ago northern Europe was uninhabitable, covered by glaciers. People moved into Southern Europe and the central Russian plain (Soffer, cited in Shreeve, 1996:315).
People might have been living in competition for food resources so hence the need for allies, and communication networks. This might driven the need for ritual behaviour; the figurines being one aspect. Shreeve sees unions between tribes as being arranged not only for economic advantages but also for political aid in times of hardship, and women being important for their reproductive value. Perhaps the figurines symbolised the value of alliances. (1996:330). The similarity in styles of the figurines hints at alliances (or at the very least contact) of Gravettian people over large distances, from Italy through to the Russian plain.
In addition, the worsening of the climate probably caused the Gravettians some concern, so they might have developed new belief systems to cope with this- belief in a feminine deity/creator who they could call upon for her assistance. Women being the ones who brought forth life, might have been seen as embodiments of this deity, and held some especial roles within society, where some or all aspects of womanhood were symbolised/ritualised.
The impetus behind creation of the Gravettian figurines seems to have arisen out of numerous reasons, reflecting the different tribes/clans of people who carved them, over large distances, which probably changed over time and as various needs and cultural differences arose and as various tribes/clans traded and interacted. What seems evident however, was that at the heart of it all, there existed some kind of shared understanding or idea or symbolic reference to do with womanhood/the feminine, perhaps the belief in one or more powerful feminine beings/ deities who had the power to take on different forms and interact with people and animals.
Bahn, P and Vertut, J, 1997. Journey Through the Ice Age. University of California press, Berkley, Los Angeles.
Bisson, M S, and Bolduc, P, 1994.”Previously Undescribed Figurines from the Grimaldi Caves.” Current Anthropology, 35 (4): 458-468.
Hardingham, Evan, 1980. Secrets of the Ice Age: The World of the Cave Artists. Heinemann, London.
Roebucks, W et al, 2000.Hunters of the Golden Age. University of Leiden.
Shreeve, James, 1996.The Neandertal Enigma: Solving the Mystery Of Modern Human Origins. William Morrowland and Company Inc, New York.
Vialou, D, 1998.Our Prehistoric Past, Art and Civilization. Thames and Hudson, London.
White, Randall, and 2003.Prehistoric Art: The Symbolic Journey of Humankind. Harry N Abrams.
Websites:
Antropark, (the website of the Czech Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Archaeology in Brno, The Center for Paleolithic and Paleoethnological Research) http://www.iabrno.cz/agalerie/aagalery.htm
Don’s Maps: http://donsmaps.com/indexeurovenus.html
http://donsmaps.com/ukrainevenus.html
Women In Prehistory:
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/willendorfwoman.html
* Unfortunately, figures and images have been removed to comply with British copyright regulations.
“The Venus Phenomenon” in the Gravettian Period.*
K. M. John.
Articles
It is believed that ideals about the past are inexorably linked with the contemporary social and political atmosphere of a country or region. To assess this, the Republic of Ireland has been chosen to show the interplay between social ideals and our concept of the past. The question of our heritage can be divided into six major categories: who; what; when; where; why and how. This article will deal with the question of why we have an interest in the past at all, as Pagans, and are we getting ‘the real deal’ when it comes to the picture we have of our ancestors?
Although modern Paganism covers a wide range of belief systems, with many different traditions of origin for the symbolism and rites used, for modern Pagans in Britain the remains of the sites where our ancestors practiced hold great significance, often irrespective of the tradition followed by an individual today. Respecting the past is not a priority for everyone; it is only the principle interest of a minority, often conflicting with the ideals of others. Farmers and property developers, as examples of groups with differing interests, would most generally prioritise obtaining maximum yield and profit from their land respectively, accepting, even if unwillingly, the destruction of sites in favour of economic priorities. In a sense, we see here a dichotomy of interests in preserving our past versus progression. It has been argued that archaeologists are somewhat primarily responsible for creating our concept of the ‘past’ (Tóth-Jones 2006), as they are the ones who investigate what happened, and tell the story of the ancestors to us, through what remains of the archaeological record.
One question, given particular emphasis in archaeological spheres at present, concerns how archaeologists are, not just preserving, but also presenting the archaeological record as ‘experts’. Archaeology is presented in many ways, not just through the remains at the sites themselves, but in museums and at interpretative centres. When analysing why archaeologists present archaeology as they do, we must consider their motivations for presenting archaeology in the first place. If archaeologists argue that they are not merely preserving and presenting archaeology for archaeology’s own sake, they are making the inherent assumption that archaeology holds intrisic value for people in general. The question then arises as to what the past actually means to people; why is it important to respect and learn about the past? This, in effect, means archaeologists asking people what they wish to gain from the past; not only telling people what they should think about history, but finding out what history means to them.
What do people wish to gain from the past?
Initially, when asked ‘Why do people want to learn about the past?’ it is all too easy to respond that a desire to know what preceded their own existence is part of human nature. This, in today’s society, where the psychology of human motivation is given such emphasis, seems to be a very evasive response, and is considered, at least by the present writer, to be why many still deem archaeology as out-dated and irrelevant, and in effect, unimportant. Many authors have considered the conundrum of archaeology as a relevant and living discipline (Ascherson 2004, 152). In the author’s own experience the majority of visitors to sites, like megalithic tombs and stone circles, do so out of a general interest in the subject, enjoying sites for what they are, and what they mean, not, however, with the aim of extensive analysis of the site’s place within various, and somewhat secondary, contexts; be they political, social or academic(1). In such cases, it is argued, that it should be the aim of the archaeologist to represent the meaning and place of a site fairly, within its wider context in a collective history (Stevens 2003), with little requirement for any previous ‘archaeological’ knowledge about the site.
(1) In fact, it should not be assumed that all visitors to sites do so out of any interest in archaeology. While at a Welsh site a few years ago, my comment on the magnificence of the megalith to a lone man meandering around the site, to my surprise, was met with the retort ‘Oh yes, but I came to see the fence; my friend put it up last week, isn’t it well-made?’!
It is difficult to dispute that yet another inherent human trait for many people is to gain knowledge for knowledge’s sake, yet it is believed that archaeology, and learning about the past has many uses within the social sphere. For example, oral tradition is a key theme of study in archaeology (Whiteley 2002). Yet, with the development of our own Western society, this oral tradition has been replaced by the ability to document events as they happen with widespread literacy, and more recently, technological advancements such as television and other international information logging and distribution systems. In effect, there is no longer a need for long oral traditions within social groupings, as a history and sense of past is provided for us, without the necessity of social bonding as a community. Now, the public are becoming increasingly interested in the subject, as they begin to realise that the archaeologist’s ‘past’, is, in reality, also their own past, and Brett considers that by engaging with our heritage we are temporarily ‘reconstituting our nation’ (ibid. 1996, 156).
In turn, it is suggested that people are underpinning their identity and sense of belonging to a social group – hence their national identity, indeed the Heritage Council itself acknowledges Tara ‘as important in the construction of Irish cultural identity’ after a landscape characterization programme was undertaken (Heritage Council 2005). Ascherson suggests that archaeology is a nationalistic and patriotic undertaking in some contexts (Ascherson 2004), arguing that the media often present archaeological sites in a way suggesting superiority of the mother nation, or locale. Media coverage of archaeological themes are what the public see most of from the archaeological world, with many archaeologically orientated articles in both national and local newspapers, for example the Irish Times with many articles about Irish Heritage (e.g. McDonald 2004; Battersby 2005). For example, an article in the Irish Times states that a ‘county Sligo tomb could be the worlds oldest, predating the pyramids’ and may also lead to ‘the history of archaeology being rewritten’ (O’Sullivan 1998).
Although all of these things may be true in a sense, often only those with an extensive knowledge of the subject can put these over-generalisations into their proper context. Although these new radiocarbon dates do suggest this, there is still a dispute about the accuracy of these Carrowmore dates, yet this is not mentioned in the article. Furthermore, O’Sullivan states that ‘Irish populations engaged in agriculture many hundreds of years before mainland Britain’, which may be a true statement, although somewhat out of context here. This could lead us to infer a slightly modern political bias in the purpose of this article, although it does highlight an important point for the archaeologist when presenting archaeological information, and indeed for us, on the receiving end of such information, a need to critically analyse the information which is presented to us, when creating our own concept of ‘past’. This could, to an extent, be used as an example of Ascherson’s theory (Ascherson 2004, 148). However, this brings to light an interesting theme relating to archaeology and the public, it reveals to us that ‘the past’ is not just a static thing, it is dynamic and changes in response to people’s current, personal and socially constructed, world-view. Not only can it be used as a device to underpin nationality, it is viewed and used to underpin specific ideas that people hold about themselves and society in general, so the purpose of archaeological knowledge will change in response to these ideas. In order to present archaeology to the public, archaeologists must be aware of the purpose, and meaning it has for them.
An argument in archaeological spheres at present, is whether or not to respect this ‘popular archaeology’, or to convey the past only as they see it? If they do present it as an ‘historical truth’, are they not just studying archaeology for its own sake, if it has no relevance for the people on the receiving end of this presentation – the public? Because of this, it is important for the public themselves not only, as stated, to assess what is being presented to them as ‘historical truths’, but also to respond to this on a personal level, becoming involved in the archaeological discourse, and involved in creating their own past.
Archaeology as Tourism
In Ireland archaeology at is at the forefront of political concerns, people are realising that they are losing their traditional identity, flocking to save their heritage, while government pushes for progress. It has been suggested that the government are only exploiting archaeology at present, to underpin the traditional Irish identity for tourism, and in turn, economic growth.
We see many holiday adverts in Britain pushing the traditionalistic aspects of the nation. It appears that archaeology is being utilized as an attraction, not valuing it for its own merit, shown by putting motorways and golf courses next to impressive sites like Tara and Carrickmine’s Castle. In many ways, the arguments presented about monument presentation are convincing, yet seem very distant from the ideas that the public hold about their reasons for visiting sites, and from the current writer’s own experience of talking to people at Carrowmore, and other sites. It seems that many, from individuals to families, and tour groups, view these trips as ‘a good day out for all the family’, and the idea of getting out of the city, while learning at the same time, is often repeated.
References:
Ascherson, N. 2004. ‘Archaeology and the British Media’, in Merriman, N. (ed.).
Public Archaeology. London: Routledge.
Battersby, E. 2005. ‘Haunting the Burren’, The Irish Times, 2 February.
Brett, D. 1996. The Construction of Heritage. Cork: Cork University Press.
Copeland, T. 2004. ‘Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Constructing Insights On
Site’, in Merriman, N. (ed.). Public Archaeology. London: Routledge.
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. 2005.
http://www.heritagedata.ie
Fáilte Ireland. 2006.http://www.webtourism.ie
Heritage Council Homepage. 2005. http://www.npws.ie
Kneafsey, M. 1995. ‘A Landscape of Memories: Heritage and Tourism in Mayo’, pp.
135 – 153, in Kockel, U. (ed.). 1995. Landscape, Heritage and Identity: Case Studies in Irish Ethnography. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Lynas, M. 2004. ‘The Concrete Isle’, in The Guardian Weekend, December 4,
pp.16 – 25.
McDavid, C. 2004. ‘Towards a More Democratic Archaeology’, in Merriman, N.
(ed.). Public Archaeology. London: Routledge.
One of the most famous images of Palaeolithic Europe is the “Venus of Willendorf”- a beautifully carved limestone figurine (11.1cms) of a naked overweight woman, wearing some kind of plaited hairstyle or woven fibre hat (figure1). She is just one example of a type of carved feminine figurine, usually known as a “Venus”, found in the Gravettian period, ranging from France to Russia. These figurines were carved from ivory and various types of stone, and even fired clay. The figurines are usually naked with large breasts, stomachs and buttocks, and their vulvas are emphasised. The feet are missing and arms are given less emphasis.
Various interpretations for these enigmatic figurines have been given- an image of an Earth Mother/ Goddess, female ancestor cults, symbols of fertility, amulets for good luck (quite a few figurines such as those from Kostenki, Malt’a and Avdeevo have been pierced for suspension) and protection in childbirth and evidence for shared networks and alliances between tribes /clans (Shreeve, 1996:306-7).
Almost no male figurines have been found (with some exceptions being the “doll” found in the burial of a man at Brno and the questionable male head from Dolni Vestonice), which does strengthen the interpretation of the figurines symbolising some kind of “Earth Mother/Goddess” cult, or veneration of womanhood. The Venus of Willendorf’s hat/plaits are comprised of seven full circles - seven in later times was regarded a sacred number and sometimes associated with the Seven Sisters (The Pleiades). There is no way of telling if this was of significance in the Gravettian, but it is interesting nevertheless. Certainly, this hat/hairstyle must have held some symbolic, sacred or cultural significance throughout the Gravettian over large distances, for it is also seen on figurines from Russia. The one known as the “Golf Ball” from Kostenki 1, and another figurine in marl from New Avdeevo are of especial note for their striking similarity to the Willendorf figurine (figures 3 and 4).
The Willendorf figurine, according to Christopher Witcombe, was meant to be held in one’s hand, where she is “transformed” into a “sensuous object.” (http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/willendorfwoman.html). When she was discovered, she still bore traces of red ochre, which could have symbolised menstrual or birth blood. The figurine might have been some kind of protective amulet for childbirth, or a symbol of the life giving attributes of womanhood or an Earth Mother, or both.
The ceramic figurine found at Dolni Vestonice (figure 5), though different in style to the Willendorf one, has a sensuous look also, shining lustrously. On top of the head are four holes which may have been intended to hold grasses or herbs.
(http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/sites/europe/dolni_vestonice.html found at dons maps http://donsmaps.com/tripleburial.html) The eyes are suggested by two slits and on her back are two deep incised lines which may indicate scarification. The insertion of grasses/herbs on the head might have symbolised the bounty of the Earth Mother, and the scarification marks showing a tribal practice of women at Dolni Vestonice; thus in this way the figurine acted as a unity of deity and tribal womanhood identity. Most of the figurines do not have represented faces. Two exceptions to the rule are carved ivory heads of women from France and the Czech Republic.
The young woman from Brassempouy (figure 6) is a beautiful example of the skill of the Gravettian carvers. Complete with nose and suggested eyes and some kind of plaited hairstyle or headcovering, she exudes some kind of personal feeling. Edouard Piette was moved enough to say “it seems to have been love that encouraged the first sculpture to carve ivory to depict the woman he loved.” (Vialou 1998: 66).
The head from Dolni Vestonice (figure 7) also shows some kind of hairstyle; the hair appears to be gathered up on top of the head in a bun. Interestingly, the face is asymmetrical. It is unlike any other of the figurines found at the site, and the skeleton of a woman found at a nearby grave was found to have had some kind of bone disease which resulted in her face drooping on the left side (Shreeve, 1996:284). Here it seems this unfortunate woman who lived some 26,000 years ago was immortalised in ivory.
These two heads are far more of a personal kind than the faceless figurines we generally find. They seem to be a personal portrait of a real woman (carved perhaps by someone’s friend or spouse) not an idea of womanhood.
The ivory figurines from Malt’a in Siberia differ from most Gravettian figurines - they do not have large breasts, nor depicted pregnant and have flat stomachs, with facial details. In common with general figurines, however, they are often naked, have no feet and like other Eastern figurines show adornments such as suggested clothing and hairstyles. The arms are positioned at their sides, unlike other figurines, which usually have their arms over the breasts or under the stomach. Only a few have been pierced for suspension (White, 2003:145). Comparing these figurines to other Eastern (and Western sites), to me they look much less ritualised, as though they are indicating female styles of clothing of a tribe/clan, rather than multi layered, symbolic ideas about womanhood and the feminine which most other Gravettian figurines seem to be depicting.
The figurines from Kostenki, Avdeevo and Gagarino in Russia were found in pits in habitation sites in semi subterranean dwellings made out of mammoth bones, with a line of hearths running down the middle of the structures, which gives context to them. The pits were dug around the area of the hearths.
At Kostenki 1, there was found a line of ten hearths; in the pits decorated ivory implements and flint tools were found and most of the female figurines. There appears to have been some ritualistic function behind the placement of the figurines in the pits. For example one figurine (figure 8) had been placed stood up facing the hearths. Also found in the pit with the figurine was a decorated ivory diadem, three large pieces of burned bone, flint tools and some bone plaques. After the objects had been put in the pit it had been covered with a mixture of silt and red ochre and the 12 cms opening was covered with a mammoth shoulder bone (White, 2003:138). It is possible that the items were interred as some kind of “offering” to the figurine.
Ludmilla Lakovleva noted that most of the figurines are broken, and is of the opinion that the figurines were created and then destroyed in the habitation spaces (in Roebroeks et al, 2000: 126). Broken clay figurines (both of women and animals) were found at Dolni Vestonice -they had been deliberately (and perhaps ritualistically) exploded in the kiln despite the loess soil they were made from being very resistant to thermal shock. (Shreeve, 1996: 280-1).
At Avdeevo two ivory figurines were found in one pit, and placed head to toe- they were found to have been carved out of the same piece and interlocked. (White, 2003:141). This is of additional interest in light of the find from Gagarino, where two figurines are still joined at the head, and the burial from Sungir in which two children were laid to rest head to head.
Paul Bahn however, does not see any particular significance in any of these, he believes that the Gagarino find is simply a piece of unfinished work, that it is a piece intended to have been separated when completed (1997:102). He may well be correct, but I find it significant that the some of the Balzi Rossi (Grimaldi) figurines show double heads/figures, and in addition the figurine from Lespugue, France, is also some kind of double representation- it can be turned around so that the “apron” becomes long hair (figure 9).
Gagarino itself is of even more interest due to the discovery of ten “pregnant” figurines, each one in a niche dug around the circumference of the structure. It is thought that this structure might have been a birthing house (White, 2003:141). This seems to be a likely function of the structure. It may have also acted as some kind of “temple”, where pregnant women would beseech some kind of feminine deity for protection in childbirth, or conducted fertility rites.