Upper Palaeolithic figures as a reflection of human morphology and social organization.

Upper Palaeolithic figures as a reflection of human morphology and social organization. IntroductionWe assume that Palaeolithic artists portrayed men and women frommodels around them. If this assumption of realistic representation iscorrect, their art should display the diversity of their life,portraying both physical variations and individuals of both sexes andevery age. The animal art does indeed present such a diversity -- forexample, the panneau aux bouquetins (ibex panel) of the Bourdoisshelter, in Angles-sur-l'Anglin, which shows seven subjects,'three males and one female preceding her calf', then 'amale following his female' (Saint-Mathurin 1984). We shall try todemonstrate by means of examples, cross-checked by our own observations,that the same applies to human art, which provides a picture of natureand the behaviour of human Palaeolithic groups, as much from thedemographic as from the social point of view.The social rangeIn Palaeolithic art it is a mistake to retain the common picture ofrepresentation exclusively of obese women, mothers or nurses, for theyare not the general rule. In addition to these over-publicized cliches,and humans of indeterminate sex, there are many slender femininesubjects and a not inconsiderable in��con��sid��er��a��ble?adj.Too small or unimportant to merit attention or consideration; trivial.in number of masculine subjects, as wellas human beings of all ages, from infants to old people.ChildrenWe have demonstrated (Duhard 1989a; 1989b) that Upper Palaeolithicart showed pregnant or parturient parturient/par��tu��ri��ent/ (pahr-tu��re-ent) giving birth or pertaining to birth; by extension, a woman in labor. par��tu��ri��entadj.1. Of or relating to giving birth.2. women and scenes of copulation copulation/cop��u��la��tion/ (kop?u-la��shun) sexual union; the transfer of the sperm from male to female; usually applied to the mating process in nonhuman animals. cop��u��la��tionn.1. .Logically, there must have been children, which we wish to confirm inthis paper.1 The 'new-born' no. 35-I from La MarchePales pointed out that the head was 'too large in relation tothe body', and that there were two bulges on the occiput; hewondered if the 'glove finger' outline in front of the kneewas a semi-erect penis (1976) which would allow it, 'rightly orwrongly', to be identified as a male (1968). Having examined thistrapezoidal limestone plaque (Laboratoire de Prehistoire, Musee del'Homme, Paris), we regard it to show a new born infant, for thefollowing reasons:a the head is very large, as is the case with babies, where thelength of the head is one quarter of the height;b the double occipital contour suggests a cephalic cephalic/ce��phal��ic/ (se-fal��ik) pertaining to the head, or to the head end of the body. ce��phal��icadj.1. Of or relating to the head.2. bruise('cephalematome') as L. Pales believed it to be; it is in factan extravasation extravasation/ex��trav��a��sa��tion/ (ek-strav?ah-za��shun)1. a discharge or escape, as of blood, from a vessel into the tissues; blood or other substance so discharged.2. the process of being extravasated. of blood beneath the periosteum periosteumDense membrane over bones. The outer layer contains nerve fibres and many blood vessels, which supply cells in the bone. The bone-producing cells of the inner layer are most prominent in fetal life and early childhood, when bone formation is at its peak. , resulting from afracture of the external surface of the bone, which appears between afew hours and two days following birth, reaching its peak around thetenth day and only showing resorption resorption/re��sorp��tion/ (re-sorp��shun)1. the lysis and assimilation of a substance, as of bone.2. reabsorption.re��sorp��tionn. after several weeks; theosteogenic osteogenic/os��te��o��gen��ic/ (-jen��ik) derived from or composed of any tissue concerned in bone growth or repair. os��te��o��gen��icor os��te��o��ge��net��icadj. reaction, at the limit of detachment, results in a hard rimand shows a clean circumferential edge (Merger 1967);c the lower limbs are slightly bent, which is post-birth persistenceof the foetal foe��tal?adj. Chiefly BritishVariant of fetal.Adj. 1. foetal - of or relating to a fetus; "fetal development"fetal posture. We find it again in Fontanet's small subjectno. 103;d the 'glove finger' outline, the extremity of whichdisappears in the lines of the plates, does not correspond to theposition of a penis, which would be hidden by the thigh, but to that ofan umbilical cord umbilical cord(ŭmbĭl`ĭkəl), cordlike structure about 22 in. (56 cm) long in the pregnant human female, extending from the abdominal wall of the fetus to the placenta. ;e the superposition su��per��po��si��tion?n.1. The act of superposing or the state of being superposed: "Yet another technique in the forensic specialist's repertoire is photo superposition" on subject no. 35-II, with a bulging andgravid-looking abdomen, is not a conclusive argument, but thiscomparison should be borne in mind.2 Children of plate no. 27We have also examined the large triangular slab fractured into threematching pieces (La Marche, Laboratoire de Prehistoire, Musee del'Homme, Paris), and we agree with Dr Pales' estimation(1976):The impression produced is that of young individuals, children orteenagers, mainly the first one (I), whose face is truly baby-like.The shape of the head of the latter, with its bulging forehead, andthe back of the occipital elongation, are very reminiscent of theplastic cranial cranial/cra��ni��al/ (-al)1. pertaining to the cranium.2. toward the head end of the body; a synonym of superior in humans and other bipeds.cra��ni��aladj. deformation which can occur during childbirth in frontalpresentation. It would be unwise to give ages to these heads, but theimpression is that of 'young individuals', as Pales wrote.3 The 'young girls' of Laugerie-Basse and Bruniquel'Only the genitalia genitalia/gen��i��ta��lia/ (jen?i-tal��e-ah) [L.] the reproductive organs.ambiguous genitalia permit identification as a woman, unless sheis a young girl', A. Ducros pertinently remarked (1983) about thefirst one. In fact, this slender subject, without marks of maternity, orbreasts (as shown by our examination at the Musee de l'Homme,Duhard 1989a), shows a straight, narrow and vertical vulvar vulvarpertaining to or emanating from the vulva.vulvar atresiafailure of the orifice to open may occur with imperforate anus as a congenital defect. slit, whichis an infantile feature. We emphasized the same aspect of the secondfigure from Bruniquel, examined at the Musee des Antiquites Nationales(Saint-Germain-en-Laye).'Intellectual realism' may be put forward for thepositioning of the vulvar slit that way, but there remain theslenderness and the absence of breasts in these two feminine figures,which are realistic in other aspects, particularly the lower limbs, veryaccurately rendered up to their separation.4 Fontanet's no. 103Vialou (1985) describes a new-born girl child, because of the flexedand separated lower limbs, the linear and frontal vulvar slit, and thelarge breadth of the limbs compared with their length.5 The Brassempouy 'cradle'This piece was discovered during an excavation campaign directed byH. Delporte (1985) in the Perigordian VC of the so-called 'Grottedu Pape' (Pope's Cave), a short distance from the spot wherethe 'Torse' (torso) with pregnant abdomen was found. It ismade up of two bone objects, apparently without traces of working andfound in close association, one resembling a cradle, the other a childlying in it.6 The Gonnersdorf caseFIGURE 5 shows 'four figures one behind the other, a small formturning backwards is engraved behind the back of the second one on theright; we see there the representation of a baby carried and tied to theback of a woman' (Bosinski 1973). Attention should be drawn to aphysiological detail: this woman alone, assumed to be a mother, isdepicted with rounded breasts, while the other women, without babies ontheir back, have pointed breasts.A second plate shows a roughly anthropomorphic Having the characteristics of a human being. For example, an anthropomorphic robot has a head, arms and legs. figure, without limbsor genitalia, which is linked by lines to a neighbouring femalesilhouette fessiere (gluteal gluteal/glu��te��al/ (gloo��te-al) pertaining to the buttocks. glu��te��aladj.Of or relating to the buttocks.glutealpertaining to the buttocks. silhouette) with a flat abdomen and smallbreasts. Marshack (1975) sees this as a foetus attached by the umbilicalcord, but this remains an assumption.WomenNot only all shapes and sizes of people, but also all ages are to befound. This does not mean, however, that demographic inferences can bedrawn.1 Female morphologiesEven a cursory examination of the carved or engraved female figures,whether Gravettian or Magdalenian, quickly shows that all morphologiesare represented, from slender to short, thick-set women. This diversityis an essential characteristic, and Nelson (1990) is right in pointingit out. A more thorough examination, such as we have attempted on Frenchrepresentations, shows that some of them are gravid gravid/grav��id/ (grav��id) pregnant. grav��idadj.Carrying eggs or developing young.gra��vid , and that adiposity adiposity/ad��i��pos��i��ty/ (ad?i-pos��i-te) obesity.cerebral adiposity? fatness due to cerebral disease, especially of the hypothalamus.adiposityobesity. is generally related to that condition (Duhard 1988; 1989a; 1991).When this adiposity is studied in detail (Duhard 1991), it becomesevident that the women depicted display every variation and accuratelyreproduce the forms encountered among living people (Duhard 1988):excessive gluteal fat (steatopygia steatopygia/ste��a��to��pyg��ia/ (ste?ah-to-pij��e-ah) excessive fatness of the buttocks.steatop��ygous ste��at��o��pyg��i��aor ste��a��to��py��gan.Excessive accumulation of fat on the buttocks. ), fat round the hips (steatocoxia),femoral femoral/fem��o��ral/ (fem��or-al) pertaining to the femur or to the thigh. fem��o��raladj.Of or relating to the femur or thigh. fat (steatotrochanteria), and crural crural/cru��ral/ (krldbomacr��al) pertaining to the lower limb or to a leglike structure (crus). cru��raladj.1. Of or relating to the leg, shank, or thigh.2. fat (steatomeria).Palaeolithic human figurative art thus reflects living morphologicaldiversity and in this respect is realistic.2 The various ages of the womana P.C. Rice's thesisWe attentively read Rice's article (1981) and we are grateful toher for her long reply (pers. comm. 1988) to our request for her datasheets. We are therefore all the more sorry that we cannot totally agreewith her analysis. From the study of photographic reproductions andsubmitting five morphological characters to the assessment of fiveexperts, she classifies women into three 'reproduction-related agegroups': young or pre-reproductive females; medium, or reproductivefemales (pregnant or non-pregnant); and old or post-reproductivefemales. She compares the plotted percentages with those found inpresent-day hunter-gatherer societies and, by comparing their apparentsimilarities, claims that the Palaeolithic 'Venuses' representthe complete range of the various reproduction-related groups of UpperPalaeolithic adult women. Finding the non-pregnant women proportionallymore common than the pregnant ones, she infers that 'it iswomanhood rather than motherhood that is symbolicallyrecognized...'. We shall return to that point later.This theoretical exercise in palaeo-ethnological fiction isunfortunately based on an incorrect methodology, with non-demonstratedassumptions, and a number of errors. What supports the description ofthe Gabillou 'Femme a l'anorak' (anorak-wearing woman) aspregnant, when the femininity is questionable and there is no swollenabdomen (Duhard 1990a)? In the Bedeilhac figurine, which is confined tothe head, what argument can be put forward to justify the assertion thatit is of the female sex and, moreover, menopausal? How can she statepositively that at Grimaldi there are only three pregnant women, wheneveryone is in agreement in seeing six? The opinions of the experts arevery often divergent. In Angles-sur-l'Anglin, for instance, for thesecond figure (with a very bulging abdomen), expert 1 delivers a correctdiagnosis (i.e. reproductive and pregnant); expert 2 offers no opinion;experts 3 and 4 classify it among the young and pre-reproductivefemales, which is the classification eventually accepted. It should benoted that the third figure is represented only by its pelvis andthighs, rendering any interpretation difficult (it is classified asyoung and pre-reproductive) and the fourth (on the panneau auxbouquetins) is not quoted. Statistical treatment of the figurescertainly permits us to advance our knowledge of the Upper Palaeolithicworld, but in this case it is necessary for the demonstrations to besupported by valid data. This appears not to have been the case: for theEuro-Asiatic group, only 132 figures have been considered (the totalnumber of French examples); many were overlooked (14 in La Marche, 13 atLes Combarelles), all the stylized figures were discarded (severalhundreds) and all the damaged ones ignored (47 for Kostenki alone).Moreover, at Brassempouy two figurines are considered to be feminine,but one of these is certainly masculine ('la figurine a laceinture', Duhard 1987) and the other one probably, too('L'Ebauche').Under these conditions, it cannot be conceivable that such samplingcould be representative of the various classes of Upper Palaeolithicwomen, an opinion also shared by Bahn (1988) and Gvozdover (1989).Moreover, we are not certain that ethnographical comparison withpresent-day primitives is valid, for we do not believe them to begenuine descendants of prehistoric peoples, nor the inheritors of theirway of life. Such a comparison should not let us forget that the bestway to profit from these works of art, is to study them directly.b The realityNevertheless, Rice's basic idea was correct: Palaeolithicfigures provide a complete range of individuals of both sexes and allages, with, however, an apparent majority of women and adults and aminority of children. We do not claim to classify all the women depictedaccording to age categories, but prefer, as a gynaecologist, to offer afew reflections which may help other authors in future research.1 Those females must be regarded as adult women who have breastsand/or a bulging abdomen, and/or a prominent pelvic mound, since thesesexual characteristics only appear after puberty. This group, of course,includes carved or engraved 'gluteal figures', pronouncedbuttocks being a feminine attribute, more precisely of a post-pubertalwoman.2 Pregnant women are those with bulging abdomens, with even morecertainty when adiposity is normal. When their breasts are not saggingthey will have had a few children (paucigestes) and when they do, theyhave probably had many (multigestes).According to Rice, these feminine figures are not representations ofmaternity, for she only finds 17% pregnant subjects. In France, however,we have found a larger number: 68% from the Gravettian and 36% from theMagdalenian (Duhard 1989a). If hypotheses are to be formulated, accountmust be taken of the period (i.e. a chronological factor) and also ofthe place (geographical factor); at La Marche, dated to Magdalenian III,the percentage of gravid women equals that of the whole Gravettianperiod. It is possible, moreover, that the percentage of gravid women ishigher than bulging abdomens reveal: for us, the presence of anabdominal gesture (arms directed to the abdomen) may be a substitute forthis feature and may indicate pregnancy (Duhard 1988c).3 Women with a flat abdomen must be considered not to be pregnant,whether depicted in a descriptive or a schematic style. The importanceof the pelvic mound should permit distinction between pre-reproductiveand reproductive women.4 These women are mothers and nurses whose breasts are drooping droop?v. drooped, droop��ing, droopsv.intr.1. To bend or hang downward: "His mouth drooped sadly, pulled down, no doubt, by the plump weight of his jowls",especially those with a triangular lower end, mainly if their adiposityis increased.Despite this classification, we cannot be sure of a successfuloutcome. It still remains necessary to carry out one difficultclassification of indeterminate human figures: a large number of thesemay be women, but they may equally be men or children. From thephysiological point of view, women are sexual partners, nursing mothersand social partners. Culturally speaking, any of these roles may, at agiven moment, have been privileged, but nothing, with the data atpresent available to archaeology, allows this fact to be proved. Onlyart may supply a few clues; we shall return to this point.MenMen have overall been underestimated by most scholars, who have nothad good diagnostic data available to them. To determine the sex ofrepresentations of human beings, we have two types of criteria at ourdisposal, some certain, others presumed. The former include: for men,testicles and penis; for women, breasts, vulva vulva/vul��va/ (vul��vah) [L.] the external genital organs of the female, including the mons pubis, labia majora and minora, clitoris, and vestibule of the vagina. and bulging pregnantabdomen. Among the second group are, for men, body proportions(broad-shouldered), facial hair, weapons (no unquestionable womancarries a weapon), or conflictual confrontation; for women, width ofhips, gluteal protrusion protrusion/pro��tru��sion/ (-troo��zhun)1. extension beyond the usual limits, or above a plane surface.2. the state of being thrust forward or laterally, as in masticatory movements of the mandible. , the wearing of a belt or forearm or anklerings (Pales 1976). These criteria are of unequal value but they can, byassociation, lead to diagnostic certainty. This has led us to proposesexual ratings for masculinity and femininity, which may easily beapplied in the study of human figures (Duhard 1990a):If the rating is superior to 4, the sex is certain; between 2 and 4,it is probable; below or equal to 1, it is doubtful. On this basis itshould be possible to deduce a large number of masculine humans from theindeterminate group; the supposed under-representation of men bycomparison with women may well prove to be the result of our inabilityto recognize them. Pre-pubescent children, apart from the genitalia, areundifferentiated in appearance, and it is feasible that a fair number ofindeterminate subjects are children.masculinity rating femininity rating(MR) (FR)1 facial hair 1 pubogenital triangle2 broad or thick thorax 2 broad pelvis and/oror carrying weapon gluteal protusionor fighting againstanimal3 carrying animal 3 pregnant abdomentrophy4 penis 4 vulva and/or breastsThe sexual social divisionA simple (or simplistic sim��plism?n.The tendency to oversimplify an issue or a problem by ignoring complexities or complications.[French simplisme, from simple, simple, from Old French; see simple ) schemeMuch has been said about the division of work among hunter-gathererprehistoric or primitive people, with clear-cut divergences between thearguments, mainly as a function of the sex of the scholars (see e.g.Testard 1986 and de Beaune 1986; Johanson & Shreeve 1989).Physiologically, in their bodies as well as in their characters, menand women have different capabilities or functions, the evidence forwhich is irrefutable irrefutable - The opposite of refutable. , even though the consequences are reduced byeducation or social measures. This sexual differentiation sexual differentiationSee Hermaphroditism, hirsutism, Müllerian ducts, Precocious puberty, Pseudoprecocious puberty, Tanner staging, Testis-determining factor, Virilization, Wolffian ducts, XXX, XXY, XXXY, XYY syndromes, Y Chromosome. is generallyto be found in Upper Palaeolithic art. Women are seen in peaceful scenes-- pregnancy or child-birth, for instance. Men, by contrast, are oftendepicted in conflictual or dramatic situations (Duhard 1990a; 1990b),fighting against animals or carrying their trophies, equipped withweapons or opposing other human creatures.Rice has made similar observations, speaking of woman's passiverole and man's active one, and we are glad to record this point ofconvergence (Rice & Paterson 1988). Sometimes, the confrontationbetween a male human and an animal is to the advantage of the former(Raymonden, where seven subjects surround a dismembered buffalo), orseems to be favourable (Mas d'Azil, where a man plunges his stickinto a bear; Laugerie-Basse, where a prone man is shown throwing hisweapon towards a fleeing aurochs aurochs:see cattle. aurochsor aurochExtinct wild ox (Bos primigenius) of Europe, the species from which cattle are probably descended. The aurochs survived in central Poland until 1627. It was black, stood 6 ft (1. ). In other cases the advantage is withthe animal (Roc-de-Sers, where an aurochs pursues a fleeing man;Lascaux, where a fallen man is being gored by a buffalo).The low-relief scene from La VacheThis simple scheme of sexual division of work (or sexual dichotomy)was completely proved and easy to illustrate with examples, one of themost demonstrative LEGACY, DEMONSTRATIVE. A demonstrative legacy is a bequest of a certain sum of money; intended for the legatee at all events, with a fund particularly referred to for its payment; so that if the estate be not the testator's property at his death, the legacy will not fail: but be payable being supplied by a scene from Addaura's Cave inSicily, where a man carrying weapons on his shoulder is followed by apregnant woman carrying a burden on her back (a similar burden is to befound at Gonnersdorf).In March 1990, however, we discovered a female subject between twomasculine subjects in a low-relief scene on a stick in La Vache (MAN 83364). This provided the opportunity to take this study further (Duhard1990a). The animal is a member of the deer family (probably a reindeer)and not an aurochs as usually stated, and that is important: we haveobserved that dramatic scenes in which a human male was the hero or thevictim usually involved bovidae rather than cervidae. It is suggestedthat here, where the animal is one of the cervidae whose attitude doesnot indicate any gesture of flight nor aggression, the scene is not adramatic one. Behind the animal, and much smaller, are three humans inrow. The difference of size between the humans and the animal may resultas much from a disregard for proportions as from the intention to showtheir weakness or remoteness in comparison with the animal. This sameapparent disproportion disproportion/dis��pro��por��tion/ (dis?prah-por��shun) a lack of the proper relationship between two elements or factors.cephalopelvic disproportion can be observed in other works of Palaeolithicart: on an engraved bone from the same site, for example, showing a rowof humans behind a horse (MAN 83 349); between the horse and thediablotins (imps) of Teyjat (MAN 52 416), or between the humans and thedismembered buffalo of Raymonden (Musee du Perigord).When the three humans from La Vache are examined carefully, werecognize a 'thoracic' silhouette in the first and the third,and a 'gluteal' and 'mammary' silhouette in thesecond. On the basis of our rating system, therefore, we have a woman(FR = 6) between two men (MR = 4 and 2). It is not surprising that thesubject immediately behind the animal is a man, nor the fact that heholds at arm's length 'several objects which may representeither javelins or a bow' (Delporte 1981). Both the objects he isholding are reminiscent of those in the engraved rib from the shelter ofthe Chateau des Eyzies (Musee National de Prehistoire des Eyzies), ofsubject 38 from Gabillou, of the bone engraving from Gourdan (Piette1907: plate LXXXIII), of the deer antler engraving from Laugerie-Basse(MAN 53 819) and La Madeleine (MAN 8163), and of those displayed in thewell scene in Lascaux, and they come together with the object held onthe shoulder of the man in Roc-de-sers (MAN 71 483) or in Masd'Azil (MAN 48 120), and the bow-like objects of Raymonden. May wededuce them to be weapons? According to what one is intending to prove,one would be tempted to find this probable, doubtful, or certain.Whatever the case, this scene with the co-intervention of humans of bothsexes shows:a the absence of dramatic character for the human;b the interposition in��ter��pose?v. in��ter��posed, in��ter��pos��ing, in��ter��pos��esv.tr.1. a. To insert or introduce between parts.b. To place (oneself) between others or things.2. of the woman between the two men;c the presence of weapons on one of the men and their absence on thewoman.Although the woman took part in hunting, she was unarmed and notalone but accompanied by men, and so we may deduce from this that shedid not take part in bloody activities, something which Testard (1966)has also observed among present-day primitive peoples.ConclusionThe human representations left by Palaeolithic peoples deal withhumans of both sexes and all ages, with an apparent under-representationof men and children. Women seem to have been privileged, perhaps owingto the importance of their physiological role, since they combined thefunctions of mothers, sexual partners and social partners. Depending onthe place and the period, any of these roles may be represented infigurative works of art.Humans are only rarely represented in association with other humansor animals, or in activities related to the latter. When this is thecase, there is a clear distinction between the social roles of men andwomen: the latter are essentially pacific and a form of sexual divisionis revealed, men being equipped with weapons in dramatic confrontationwith animals and in carrying their trophies.ReferencesBAHN, P.G. & J. VERTUT. 1988. Images of the Ice Age. London:Windward.BEAUNE, S. DE. 1986. A propos de la division sexuelle du travail TRAVAIL. The act of child-bearing. 2. A woman is said to be in her travail from the time the pains of child-bearing commence until her delivery. 5 Pick. 63; 6 Greenl. R. 460. 3. chez chez?prep.At the home of; at or by.[French, from Old French, from Latin casa, cottage, hut.]chezprepat the home of [French] les chassseurs-cueilleurs, Bulletin de la Societe PrehistoriqueFrancaise 73(8): 230-2.BOSINSKI, G. 1973. Le site magdalenien de Gonnersdorf, commune deNeuwield, vallee du Rhin moyen (R.F.A.), Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique Ariege-Pyrenees 28: 25-48.DELPORTE, H. 1981. L'objet d'art prehistorique. Paris:Reunion des Musees Nationaux. 1 fasc. 1985. Fouilles a Brassempouy en1982, 1983 et 1984, Bulletin de la Societe de Borda 399: 15.DUCROS, A. 1983. Prehistoire de la France. Paris: Nathan.DUHARD, J.-P. 1987. Edouard Piette avait raison: la 'figurine ala ceinture' de Brassempouy est bien un homme, Bulletin de laSociete d'Anthropologie de Bordeaux et du Sud-Ouest 22(4): 207-12.1988. Peut-on parler d'obesite chez les femmes figurees dansl'art parietal parietal/pa��ri��e��tal/ (pah-ri��e-t'l)1. of or pertaining to the walls of a cavity.2. pertaining to or located near the parietal bone.pa��ri��e��taladj.1. et mobilier paleolithique? Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique Ariege-Pyrenees 43: 85-103.1989a. Le realisme phsyiologique des figurations feminines duPaleolithique superieur en France. These de Doctorat enAnthropologie-Prehistoire, Bordeaux-I.1989b. Les figurations de parturientes dans l'art mobilier etparietal du Paleolithique superieur en France, Bulletin de la Societed'Anthropologie de Bordeaux et du Sud-Ouest 24(4): 239-52.1989c. La gestuelle du membre superieur dans les figurationsfeminines sculptees paleolithiques, Rock Art Research 6(2): 105-17.1990a. Les humains graves de Gabillou, Bulletin de la SocieteHistorique et Archeologique du Perigord 117: 99-111.1990b. Le corps feminin et son langage dans l'art paleolithique,Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9(3): 241-55.1991. The shape of Pleistocene women, Antiquity 65: 552-61.GVOZDOVER, M.D. 1989. The typology of female figurines of theKostenki Palaeolithic culture, Soviet Anthropology & Archaeology27(4): 32-94.JOHANSON, D. & J. SHREEVE. 1989. Lucy's child: the discoveryof a human ancestor. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): W. Morrow.MARSHACK, A. 1975. Exploring the mind of Ice Age Man, NationalGeographic 147(1): 62-89.MERGER, R., J. LEVY & J. MELCHIOR. 1967. Precisd'obstetrique. Paris: Masson.NELSON, S.M. 1990. Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic'Venus' Figurines and archaeological mythology. Washington(DC): American Anthropological Association. Archeological Papers of theAmerican Anthropological Association 2: 11-22.PALES, L. & M. TASSIN DE SAINT-PEREUSE. 1968. Humains superposesde La Marche, in La prehistoire: problemes et tendances: 327-36. Paris:CNRS CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (National Center for Scientific Research, France)CNRS Centro Nacional de Referencia Para El Sida (Argentinean National Reference Center for Aids).1976. Les gravures de La Marche II: Les humains. Gap: Ophrys.PIETTE, E. 1907. L'art pendant l'age du Renne. Paris:Masson.RICE, P.C. 1981. Prehistoric Venuses: symbols of motherhood orwomanhood? Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 402-14.RICE, P.C. & A.L. PATERSON. 1988. Anthropomorphs in cave art: anempirical assessment, American Anthropologist 90: 664-74.SAINT-MATHURIN, S. DE. 1984. L'abri du Roc-aux-Sorciers, inL'art des cavernes: 583-7. Paris: Ministere de la Culture.TESTARD, A. 1966. Essai sur le fondement de la division sexuelle dutravail chez les chasseurs-cueilleurs. Paris: Editions EHESS-CNRS.Cahiers de l'Homme n.s. 25.VIALOU, D. 1985. L'art parietal dans l'Ariegemagdalenienne, Paris: CNRS. 22eme supplement a Gallia-Prehistoire.