Science

Showers (AM and PM) 13° London Hi 15°C / Lo 7°C

After 35,000 years, erotic art for cavemen discovered

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

The Venus figurine found in a German cave, features grossly protruding breasts, belly and thighs

EPA

The Venus figurine found in a German cave, features grossly protruding breasts, belly and thighs

With its grotesquely exaggerated features, this could easily be the work of one of the 20th century's great figurative artists. But this voluptuous Venus was carved out of a mammoth's tusk more than 35,000 years ago.

The two-and-a-half-inch statuette was found buried 10 feet below the floor of the Hohle Fels Cave in the Schwabian region of south-west Germany, where archaeologists have already discovered a gallery of early art objects dating to the same period of the Stone Age. Carbon dating has shown that the female figurine predates other similar Venus carvings by about 5,000 years.

"This figurine was produced at least 35,000 calendar years ago, making it one of the oldest known examples of figurative art," said Nicholas Conard of the University of Tubingen, who describes the statuette in Nature. He added that it "radically changes our views of the context and meaning of the earliest Palaeolithic art".

The oldest known works of art are abstract engravings – geometric designs in red iron oxide – found at a cave site in southern Africa and dated to about 75,000 years ago. Figurative cave paintings in southern France of Stone Age animals such as bison, horses, deer and rhinos, have been dated to about 37,000 years ago.

But the Venus figurine unearthed from the cave in Germany is the oldest known statuette depicting the human form. As the earliest example of three-dimensional figurative art, it could represent the birth of true sculpture in the global artistic tradition, according to scientists who have studied the piece.

The carving was made from a solid piece of mammoth ivory and depicts a naked woman with grossly protruding breasts, swollen thighs and belly, and a greatly enlarged and explicit vulva. A disproportionately small head was probably used to hang the figurine, according to Paul Mellars, of Stony Brook University in New York.

"The figure is explicitly – and blatantly – that of a woman, with exaggerated sexual characteristics... that by 21st-century standards could be seen as bordering on the pornographic," said Dr Mellars. "As if to emphasise the sexual characteristics, the figure's arms and legs are severely reduced to the form of a carefully carved ring, evidently to allow the figure to be suspended from a string or thong."

Similar Venus figurines with exaggerated sexual features and diminutive arms and legs have been found at a range of Stone Age archaeological sites stretching from the Pyrenees to southern Russia. These examples of early figurative art have been linked with the so-called Gravettian toolmaking culture dating to 25,000-29,000 years ago.

The latest Venus figurine is also adorned with enigmatic and possibly symbolic markings in the form of repeatedly incised lines that might conceivably represent the depiction of clothing, according to Dr Mellars. Other Venus figurines from the later period also show criss-cross designs or patterns etched on to their surfaces.

"The feature of the newly discovered figure that will undoubtedly command most attention is its explicitly, almost aggressively, sexual nature, focused on the sexual characteristics of the female form," said Dr Mellars.

Europe, 35,000 years ago, was in the process of being colonised by anatomically "modern" man, Homo sapiens, who had migrated from Africa via the Middle East. This species was gradually replacing Europe's Neanderthal man, a species that had inhabited the continent for thousands of years.

Four sites in southern Germany have produced a total of 25 mammoth-ivory carvings depicting a range of animals, from mammoths and horses to bison and cave bears. "The same sites have also yielded numerous small, carved ivory beads or pendants and the world's oldest unmistakable musical instruments," said Dr Mellars. "These take the form of perforated flutes manufactured from segments of bird wing bone."

The cave paintings of southern France may be older than the Venus figurine, "but the cornucopia of small, carved ivory statuettes from the south German sites must be seen as the birthplace of true sculpture in the European artistic tradition," added Dr Mellars.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

And on the right of this page I find this add which says:
[info]brazil2009 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 12:40 am (UTC)
" Afraid you'll be single forever? Learn the "secret Psychology" to getting a man hooked for good". Well, Perhaps that was exactly what the caveman was doing when he carved that erotic figurine out of a Mammoth's tusk. He was afraid he might become single forever. I wonder what women did to get their men those days? Would they have used " secret psychology" ?
Re: And on the right of this page I find this add which says:
[info]brazil2009 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 03:03 pm (UTC)
The article here is well written but the photo does not show the craftmanship behind this piece of art work. If someone wants to see a proper photo (2 actually), there is a link below to a brazilian newspaper. It is worth it. cheers.


http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/
Re: And on the right of this page I find this add which says:
[info]nickillinois wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 10:58 pm (UTC)
Obligado for that! You can't even tell what it is on the Independent photo - it looks more like a piece of mammoth dung that a woman. The ones you linked are much clearer.
Children's toy?
[info]emperorofcdn wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 02:49 am (UTC)
Could it not be a child's toy? Have you never seen a small girl get her first Barbie? So is this a barbie doll carved by someone without Christian inhibitions? Not that a barbie is exactly an accurate portrayal of the female form.

Old cultures
[info]wudbewoody wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 03:11 am (UTC)
The French cave paintings are 35,000 years old. In Australia, there are paintings 40,000 years old (or more). And the culture that produced them has survived, largely unchanged, 'till now. Only in the last 200 years or so, since European settlement, has the culture become eroded and endangered. In fact, there are paintings in Western Australia, in the same places and using the same techniques as similar art 10s of thousand of years old, which show the arrival of Western ships. What a portent those ships turned out to be for the ancient culture that painted them.
[info]adullamite wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 06:06 am (UTC)
So 35,000 years ago people were the same as they are today.
This is a surprise?
The Great Mother goddess
[info]david_hannaford wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 06:43 am (UTC)
It's not eroticism. It's not pornography. It's not art. It is religion.
This is the earth mother - She who, at the dawn of time, gave birth to all living things, which emerged into the light and life from this very cave.
The True Meaning of the Figurine
[info]0plus0equals0 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 06:58 am (UTC)
This so-called "Venus" figurine, in fact, represents an obese stone age woman who was horribly gored by an attacking mammoth because she could not run away quickly enough. Each cave family placed one of these on their dinner "table" (usually a large smooth rock) with other educational totems used to teach their children how to avoid life's greatest dangers and, of course, the importance of staying fit in a demanding neolithic society. These dinnertime lessons were especially effective when delivered by a cave father chewing on raw, freshly-slain mastodon flesh. After dinner he'd then loudly grunt the wide-eyed cave children off to "bed" (usually a large smooth rock) and drag his appropriately servile cave woman into the master chamber by the hair for a sensitive, romantic interlude by fireside.

"Erotic Art", my fancy mammoth-skin nickers! I supposed these "scientists" used their super time machine they bought on Al Gore's Interweb to go back and interview the original craftsman. Give us some real science (like the gravely increased danger of genetically-modified global warming from carelessly cloned sheep - from the credible likes of Nobel Prize winner Al Gore) for crying out loud. But enough about cave men winning Nobel Prizes, for Pete's sake, already.
Re: The True Meaning of the Figurine
[info]thesavageirish wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 02:40 pm (UTC)

Isn't real science what got us in the mess Al complains about. Chances are it's a not an erotic symbol, the typical interpretation of the repressed neurotic nature of myopic misogynistic scientists, but rather a cultic or votive object of veneration. While your science plays shoot em up with endless considerations on how to strip mine the planet and kill more and more people at the push of a button you might consider that todays, four thousand year, phallus centric culture, be it science, art or religion focuses primarily on means of destruction, a fact easily demonstrated though written histories of mans obsession with war, weapons and the supremacist worldview that he can control man, woman, nature and the essence of god. Science, schmience. Wisdom and philosophy are left banging on the door while science goes with the begging bowl of funding to the likes of sleazeball Alfred Nobles' guilty legacy of bombs, mines and dynamite. The figure likely hearkens to a day when the feminine principle of creation and regeneration was held more noble than Nobles' principal of destruction and degeneracy. I find it refreshing to consider that once upon a time men had the balls to admit that. Long lived the goddess.
HUH?
[info]pieinthesky2 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 07:25 am (UTC)
It looks like a decayed molar!
Quick, someone arrange a photoshoot...
[info]allthatshizz wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 08:12 am (UTC)
...This should definitely on the cover of FHM
Porno
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 08:46 am (UTC)
If its male with a huge engorged phallus its a fertility symbol. If its a woman with bountiful big tits its porno. I'm glad these art historians have clarified the difference.
Errr, Steve...
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 08:59 am (UTC)
Grossly protruding breasts and thighs? Maybe it's just how women looked back in those days, you know, before the patriarchal society made women anorexic sex objects.

35k years ago we didn't know nearly as much about biology and women and childbirth were hailed as a miracle. They also didn't have as much 'decorum' as we like to think we have now, which is why you think it is crude, Steve.

Today, the miracle of life is old news and carvings of Goddesses are misinterpreted as cave-porn.

Good one.
Re: Errr, Steve...
[info]adullamite wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 09:35 pm (UTC)
"...before the patriarchal society made women anorexic sex objects."


Slight problem with this as women use men as sex objects, or is that all right from your point of view?
HOW COULD THIS BE?
[info]richardm30 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 09:03 am (UTC)
The creationist nutters would have us believe the world is only a few thousand years old. Yet we have some art dating back to 37,000? Strange, isn't it. No matter how much evidence is presented religious people never seem to be embarrassed by their blinkered and daft OPINIONS. Nice tits though!
Same as us - humans, just without iPhones
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC)

The use of the term 'caveman' is used to lead us to think these were primative, lower IQ people.
They were the same as us, just did have todays gadgets or infrastructure. Also there were very few of them - so in some what they must have lived like the todays African 'Sans' people (expect in Europe that differed in that they didnt live in the bush).
Interesting
[info]bemjammin wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC)
I struggle to understand how any of you take issue with anything printed in this article. Blinkered assumption and self-implied context is the order of the day it seems.
Yet no tears for the mammoth...
[info]thefalcond wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:14 am (UTC)
For 75,000 years we've been graffiti-ing every flat surface and hacking the shit out of the wee and not so wee beasties...not just for food but for the crack, I mean a two and a half inch doodar out of a whole tusk! We really do excel at waste...when nature has finnally had it's fill of us at least there'll not be anyone left to filter through our rubbish and proclaim it Art:)
Her- Story finally remembered.
[info]portia27 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:15 am (UTC)
His story tried to eliminate the sacred feminine mother Goddess forever, when the patriarch system came into being.

Almost all traces of Her- story were eliminated, in the hope that our collective consciousness would forget Her forever.

We have Sheela Na Gighe in Ireland too.

So, the system destroyed the Virgin- the woman who had her own property- not that she was a virgin in the biblical sense- that is a lie.

Next the old crone- menopausal wise women were demonised as witches- to get their property too, as they lived longer than men.

Marriage was created by patriarchal religions to keep women and children as possessions and under control.

Now his and her stories will be written and male and female energies finally balanced.
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:21 am (UTC)
Doesn't carbon dating, supposedly, only show how old the tusk is and not when it was carved? Nevermind that C14 radiocarbon dating is potentially flawed (relying on the amount of C12 and C14 in the atmosphere, a figure which is definately known because it can change over time.).

Otherwise, it is an interesting find, although I question the use of the term "cave man" as others have said, this only shows that the people who carved this figurine weren't much different than us. Afterall, there are people today who live in caves and carve objects out of whatever materials are available to them.

And you would think that it's conotations as sculpture would be more down to the expertise of archeologists, historians and artistic scholars rather than scientists.
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:28 am (UTC)
Correction * a figure which ISN'T definately known...
Jordan?
[info]mowfalmighty wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:27 am (UTC)
Jordans ancestor has been discovered at last!
Womb Man
[info]portia27 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:53 am (UTC)
Great to see the Womb Man being discussed by the people of the 21st century.
[info]dogsolitude_v2 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 12:47 pm (UTC)
Is it possible that it was a self portrait, and therefore subject to a foreshortening effect when the sculptress looked down at her own body?

dogsolitude:your comment
[info]nycartist wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 07:16 pm (UTC)
great idea. It could be.
To me
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 01:04 pm (UTC)
it looks like two people hugging each other, with their middle bits partially covered by a duvet. Some say breasts, I say two heads. Also, it looks like two women hugging each other. However, if you turn it the other way up with the pointy bits (thighs?) at the top, it looks a bit like Bugs Bunny.
erotica
[info]chanderson3 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 02:21 pm (UTC)
now that I've stopped masturbating I realise this is an exact sculpture of root ginger - doh!!
Re: erotica
[info]brazil2009 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 05:00 pm (UTC)
You are right. It is not a good photo. Try the link below. The photos show that it was a true work of art and please don't take me wrong: I have no concern for your long gone glorious past. cheers


http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/
Art?
[info]mickmick8 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 02:49 pm (UTC)
This artistic piece could be the work of anyone, even a 5-year-old. It looks like a blob of nothing to me. But hey, I'm not an 'expert'. It's amazing how much people will read into this. This is not quite, but not so different than looking up at the stars and saying "Look, there's the silohette of John Lennon ah-ha, there's a god afterall", or seeing whatever you want in cloud formations, and even how some see a man's face on the moon. Yeah, I believe a human carved this ugly mess we're calling art, but it could have just been a rock that looks like a woman. I know, I know, it's too detailed to have possibly been coincidentally made by chance. That's the arguement people always make. "This could never have been a coincidence, thus... [insert any conclusion or theory here]. Again, this piece was likely manmade, but drawing any conclusions or theories about how people thought or lived based on this is silly. All we know with this paperweight (hey, there's another theory we can draw - people 35,000 years ago obviously already had home offices and this was one of their paperweights) is that humans during these ages had some brains. What a shock! This story is mildly interesting, but that's all.
Erotic? Hmmm?
[info]ancientrobot101 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 06:10 pm (UTC)
I'm an archaeology student at Reading uni, and although I am not a fully fledged "dust digger" a small part of me does wonder wether or not this should be classed as "erotic" art. It is likely that this creation was largely created as more of an early fertility worship idol. The big breasts, thighs, and vulva are maybe a way of creating an image saying "this woman would be perfect for child bearing" as apposed to "ho ho ho! Look at this! Hot, eh?". Hung up the cave it may have been believed to increase the fertility of those who dwelled there. Maybe? I'm not sure to be honest, but I doubt it was "erotic" or "pornography"....
why assume erotic art?
[info]nycartist wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 07:13 pm (UTC)
The reasons for assuming it's erotic art are not provable. Folks tend to "review" the past in terms of their own time, yes?
Is this not the verdict of the creator to show that we are but weaklings.
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 10:00 pm (UTC)
After 35,000 years, erotic art for cavemen discovered
We seem to discovering a lot on the skull and the old Flintstones yet we have tried so much to get one drop of water and failed in every direction. Is this not the verdict of the creator to show that we are but weaklings.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla

Lovely Plump Babe
[info]radson wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 10:55 pm (UTC)
It,s actually Shreks wife ,finally she has been discovered,but what color was here hair .We'll have to initiate a fund raising program to support our scientific geniouses so after maybe 30 years the answer might be known.
He be she?
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:11 pm (UTC)
Corrr!...err..how do you know it's not early Lesbian art?
NYT and the Indie? Privileged we are!
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:36 pm (UTC)
Famulla. Are you still commenting from Tanzania (Dar es salaam)? Good too see you're still posting in the New York Timesl.

PS Have you really got a Phd? Law, medicine or philosophy? Don't answer....please....