Something new from something old...

 

Ivory Carvings

  

 Two tiny carved heads from Europe, dated approx. 25,000 years ago

On Sunday I had lunch with friends in the Botanic Gardens, Kyneton. It was a lovely day for a picnic and we all had a good time. Something most important for me arose from discussions of a general nature.

I raised an item which has interested me for many years: a tiny carving of a woman’s head from 25,000 years ago, found in modern day France. I mentioned it for a number of reasons, including the unusual carving of the “hair”’ or “snood” which had been carved in considerable detail on a tiny pierce of mammoth ivory. I also mentioned the unusual facial features which seemed to represent a particular person rather than a generic image of a woman’s face, detailed as to eyes, brows, nose, a strangely prognathous chin, but no mouth.

One of the ladies at our picnic, Fiona, knew of this little figurine and called up some special info from her mobile. She kindly put me onto a youtube piece by Sally Pointer which addresses this statuette and the unusual “hair style” or cap, net, or whatever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmNLhkHhWYM&ab_channel=SallyPointer

I was in awe of Sally Pointer’s approach to this conundrum and her special way of exploring how a cordage cap could have been created from nettle fibres. I knew nothing about “cordage", but Fiona who happened to be tatting as we discussed these things was very knowledgeable about it.

There are two rare and extremely old carvings from the deep past of the European caves which depict the faces of women. Many of the figurines from ancient caves which we call “Venus” carvings do not show facial details. However these two are different and they are often referred to as “portraits”. Both are extraordinary, each carved from an extremely small piece of mammoth ivory and they differ greatly from each other in terms of style.

The first head from Brassempouy in France is tiny. It was apparently broken off from a larger figure at some time unknown.

     

    

The head is 3.65 cm high, 2.2 cm deep and 1.9 cm wide.

Let’s compare this to an average adult finger or thumb: my thumb from the last joint to tip is the same length as that carving above but my thumb is slightly wider and deeper.

So the ivory carving is slightly smaller than my top thumb joint. But I have large hands so it would probably be a bit larger than that of a woman’s thumb.

From all the information I've gathered in reading and searching the net it is most likely that it was carved using a small sliver of extremely sharp flint, probably not easy to grasp between the carver’s finger and thumb. It would be like carving with the blade of a scalpel which has no handle.

However these practicalities are not the most important thing in this discussion. I think the most important things to consider are: 

Why does this highly expressive and detailed carving from Brassempouy not display the mouth of the subject when so much else is presented?

As the head was broken off from a larger piece of carving at some time in the past, what was the size of the original carving?

What was its purpose? Was it ornamental or was it totemic?

Was it meant to portray a particular woman, as in a portrait, or was it meant to be more generic?

I’m sure there are many other questions which can be asked!

Let us leave that for a while, we’ll come back to it later.

Here is a map showing where it was found in modern day France at Brassempouy:

Now let us shift our attention to another place in Europe where a carved head of similar age was discovered at a large archaeological site in modern day Czechoslovakia. This head known as Dolni Vestonice XV was also carved from mammoth ivory.

It too is extremely small. It's only 4.8 cm high, 2.4 cm wide and 2.2 cm thick. It's slightly longer and slightly thicker than the one from Brassempouy.

Each portrait is about the size of the top joint of an adult thumb. They’ve both been dated at approximately 25,000 BP!

Does it matter which came first?

This brings us to problems of “dating” objects from antiquity. In this case I don’t think it matters much if one is a few hundred years older than the other, especially as they were found in locations so far distant from each other and current dating methods have a margin of error such as “plus or minus 300 years”.

Radio-carbon dating of ancient ivory or antler can rarely be 100% correct, dates are usually given stating a certain margin of error. Some radio-carbon dates are given as +/- 3% but they could also be given in years: e.g., +/- 300 years! The margin of error becomes larger as the years go further back in time. The most we can say is that these objects were carved in a common period of antiquity, within a few hundred years of each other. 

What is more important right now is that these two ancient ivory heads of women are delicately carved, they are both extremely expressive. Why they’ve been called “portraits” is because they seem to represent two specific human beings, detailed as to appearance and character.

That fact alone makes them extremely rare.

At this point of my wanderings I’ve found no others quite like them from that period of European cave art.

So let me show you some other more typical figurines representing women from other caves of Europe:

You can see that what they have in common is that they lack facial detail.

I don’t want to dwell upon that except to say the carvings from this ancient time with detailed facial features are rare, and those without are more common.

Now I would like to talk about the carving from Dolni, Vestonice.

1. Dolni Vestonice XV

2. Another photo of the same item, different angle and lighting:

3. Profile view

As you can see, Photo 2 is quite different from the others in colour, detail and texture.

I find this carving simply stunning, it’s very powerful. It is so expressive, it has such a representation of the mood of the person portrayed. There has been much discussion as to whether it is of a man or a woman, but most people assume that it is of a woman. 

I think it is more important to know whether this woman (or man) was just a normal person or rather, a special person such as an elder, a shaman, or a dignitary of the tribe or group. Things we can imagine but never know!

What I like about photos 1 and 3 is that they show numerous cut marks as well as the vertical “grain lines” of the ivory. But those marks are quite different from each other, some seem to mean something, show something, others are perhaps naturally occurring in the material.

The combination of the two sets of markings is astonishing and reminds me of the power we sense in totems from many parts of the world. Yet at the same time I think it is a true portrait. I think it represents a particular person, that it’s not generic.

Going back to the carving from Brassempouy:

Once again we can see clearly that there are many marks upon the face which seem to be intentional, but some like the one on the near side of the nose and middle of the cheek might be flaws in the material. The absence of a distinctive mouth haunts me… it may be that the shallow depression of the left cheek and bulbous chin represent an effect of disease or illness?

The brows are accentuated, not symmetrical, and the eyes sunken. Like the head from Vestonice, it is powerful, haunting, but I think more challenging. 

These next 2 images from Don’s Maps shed different light upon what I have said:

I must take this opportunity to mention the site Don’s Maps which has been a great source information for me over the past 12 years. Also a source of wonder.

I must also thank Sally Pointer for her wonderful video on the creation of the cap or net from nettles which has made it much easier for me to understand something about the head from Brassempouy, although I don't think other aspects of the mystery of that enigmatic face will ever leave me.

And many thanks to Fiona for introducing me to the work of Sally Pointer!

pt