Representation of the Mammoth
Representation of the mammoth
The mammoth is the most imposing land animal known to humans from the last ice age, even if it does not occupy the first place in their art, being distanced by the horse, the bison, the deer and the ibex. However, this somewhat secondary status does not prevent us from finding its image from Siberia to Spain for more than 20,000 years, both on objects and on cave walls. In total, we now know of around 700 depictions of mammoths distributed across more than a hundred archaeological sites.
The image of the mammoth is first and foremost an outline that describes the trunk, the raised head and the often hunched back. The limbs, the coat, the tusks, the eye, and even some more discreet details, are all details that may or may not be added to the representation, without affecting its essence. However, depictions of mammoths are not all identical and trends emerge according to the periods, regions and media.
The art of the caves provides the most important corpus with around 500 subjects distributed in only 47 sites, mainly in France where the Rhône valley (Gard and Ardèche) and Périgord-Quercy (Dordogne and Lot) contains the majority of the works. Abroad, Spain provides only 6 depictions, while the Russian Urals are home to some fifteen images in the Kapova and Ignatievka caves. Chronologically, two groups can be isolated. The first corresponds to the rather early phase of Palaeolithic art (Aurignacian and Gravettian cultures) with major sites such as Chauvet (Ardèche), Pech-Merle (Lot) and Cussac (Dordogne), while the second is associated with the Middle Magdalenian with the caves of Rouffignac, Font-de-Gaume, Combarelles and Bernifal (Dordogne).
Mobile art is less abundant, with around 200 figurines scattered across some 60 sites from Siberia to the Cantabrian Mountains. Of these, around forty only yield one figuration each, while, conversely, the Kostienki (Russia), Gönnersdorf (Germany) and La Marche (Vienna) sites alone account for almost two-thirds of the corpus. Chronologically, the documents are unevenly distributed across all the cultural phases, with a strong contribution from the Magdalenian (Gönnersdorf and La Marche). For this period, engraved plaques are by far the most common and again bear witness to the Magdalenian style that is also identified in the free-standing sculptures that adorn the spear throwers of Canecaude (Aude) and Bruniquel (Tarn et Garonne). This latter technique was also prevalent in the Aurignacian and Gravettian periods (and its equivalents in Eastern Europe), producing small (a few centimetres) and not very detailed statuettes in which the mammoth can be recognised by its massive character and characteristic silhouette. For this period, the sites of Eastern Europe clearly dominate, with the Kostienki site yielding some thirty figurines.
Frédéric Plassard, PHD of Prehistory, UMR 5199 PACEA University of Bordeaux
Quote this text (English version): Plassard F., 2025. Representation of the mammoth in: Averbouh A., Feruglio F. & Plassard F. Dir. The Jean-Clottes database, Animal representation in Prehistory (BJC), "Mammoth File", English version online on 12/03/2025
Quote this text (French version): Plassard F. 2023, Représentation du mammouth in : Averbouh A., Feruglio F. & Plassard F. Dir. Base Jean-Clottes - Animal Representation, Les représentations animales de la Préhistoire, "Dossier Mammouth" mis en ligne le 17/10/2023
References used
Plassard F. 2018, Les mammouths dans l'art des grottes. in : Cretin C. et Madelaine S. (dir.) - Mémoire de mammouth. Catalogue de l’exposition présentée au Musée National de Préhistoire du 30 juin au 12 novembre 2018. Edition Musée National de Préhistoire, Les Eyzies.
Paillet P. 2018, Les mammouths dans l'art mobilier. in : Cretin C. et Madelaine S. (dir.) - Mémoire de mammouth. Catalogue de l’exposition présentée au Musée National de Préhistoire du 30 juin au 12 novembre 2018. Edition Musée National de Préhistoire, Les Eyzies.