We print here the text of the Sixth McDonald Lecture, which Dr Jean Clottes delivered in Cambridge in November 1995. Dr Clottes is well-known as a leading figure in the study of Palaeolithic art, and has been closely involved with the recent discoveries at the Grotte Cosquer and Grotte Chauvet. In this article he discusses the key trends and advances in this field.

The Palace of the Governor at Uxmal is known from previous scholarship to be associated with Venus in terms of both its sculptural decoration and its orientation, which is aligned to an infrequently occurring extreme position of Venus on the horizon. A hieroglyphic inscription above the central doorway of the Palace is shown here to relate specifically to the concern with Venus and other celestial phenomena. Part of the inscription depicts zodiacal constellations, and its uppermost row is a sort of map of the constellations at the ‘base of the sky’ at the time of the Venus alignment. The Throne Inscription from Uxmal may now be recognized as one of the major sources of information about the pre-Columbian Maya zodiac.

The Levallois technique has attracted much ‘cognitive’ attention in the past decades. Many archaeologists argue that both the products and the procedure of this Palaeolithic technique have been clearly predetermined by the prehistoric flintknappers. Attempts have recently been made to challenge this notion of predetermination by reference to raw material and ‘technological’ constraints. The aim of this article is to assess the grounds on which these claims have been advanced, and then work towards a better establishment of the cognitive implications of Levallois manufacture. Latest developments in the technological understanding of Levallois are presented in their context, and then put to work through a detailed case study: the analysis, in quantitative and qualitative terms, of a comprehensively refitted Levallois core from the 250,000 year-old site of Maastricht Belvédère, in the Netherlands. By reconstructing and following the sequence of work on this highly productive core, it can be shown that its knapping did not simply entail the execution of a pre-set program, nor did it respond in an adventitious manner to external constraints. Rather, it is argued that the course of action was a structured and goal-oriented one, a generative interplay between the mental and material activities of the ancient flintknapper.

This study describes material imagery portraying anthropomorphic subjects executed in stone and clay which appear on sites of the Yarmukian culture in the Southern Levant during the sixth millennium BC. Speculations are made and interpretations offered for the incised stone and clay images of persons and genitals as artefacts recording encoded information. It is suggested that some kinds of imagery are associated with age and reproductive status and relate to gender categorization, and yet other kinds could be related to socio-political discussion.

Figurines—miniature human representations modelled in clay or stone — are one of those key categories of prehistoric material which no archaeologist who finds one can ignore. Whether working in central America or southeast Europe, or in any of the many other contexts in which figurines abound, they form a central class of material which generates a heightened level of interest and attention. But however numerous and how-ever intriguing, prehistoric figurines have another crucial quality — that of ambiguity. Without the help of textual evidence, can prehistoric figurines be confidently interpreted or understood? Can we ever hope to know what an individual figurine was meant to represent, or why it was modelled in the way it was? Yet the challenge of interpretation can hardly be refiised. For figurines illustrate self-awareness, which is a unique human characteristic. It is this dilemma — the impulse to interpret, but the difficulty of doing so convincingly — which is the focus of the present Viewpoint.

Figurines are found in many (though not all) regions and periods of prehistory. The earliest — the female forms once referred to as ‘Venus figurines’ — date back to the Upper Palaeolithic. At the other end of the scale, figurines are still in active production today, in the form of dolls, models and statues. In a prehistoric context, figurines have multiple dimensions of interest and meaning. In first place, there is the issue of sex and gender. Many figurines are clearly female, yet their gender significance, in both social and cognitive terms (rather than in simplistic notions of Mother Goddess or sex object), has only recently begun to be considered in a serious and critical way. Then there is the aspect of human self-awareness which the figurines so vibrantly express. Figurines also encode important cognitive elements in the modelling and representation of the human form, their makers frequently exaggerating some features or concealing others. Nor, ultimately, can we avoid the question of belief, and the ritual context in which so many figurines were made or used.

The contributors to this Viewpoint feature all believe that figurines can indeed be interpreted. But they also lay stress on the vital importance of context and definition. Prehistoric figurines cannot be understood as isolated artefacts, but must be seen as products of particular societies. How far we can penetrate into their meanings — and into the minds of their prehistoric makers — is the fundamental question which underpins this discussion. Can we interpret figurines? And if so, how should we go about it?