16:35 12 November 2012
Some people look at prehistoric European figurines with exaggeratedly feminine anatomy and see pornography. Do you? Here April Nowell and Melanie Chang present the evidence – and the arguments.
Read more: "'Palaeo-porn': we've got it all wrong"
Image 6 of 7
What is considered pornographic has evolved considerably even over the past 60 years. Images considered titillating in the 1940s and 1950s seem quaint now. So why do we think we can interpret images of naked women that were created in a completely different cultural context tens of thousands of years ago?
(Image: Eyeful Magazine)