Talk:Venus of Willendorf

message: "Others have raised the possibility that it was designed to be inserted vaginally, perhaps as a fertility charm, to become pregnant."
This bit needs a reference! The vaginal insertion really seems vandalism to me, as is.
Giacomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.60.198 (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: "A possible purpose of this sculpture is far more mundane, indeed. In the paleolithic times, food would have been such a scarce commodity that any excess of weight in the human body would be looked upon with shock. This statue may merely be one artist's recording of such an extraordinary individual."
All we know for certain is that the food supply back then was sufficient (since we're around nowadays, duh), and we also have no idea whether humanity back then was as easily shockable about fat woman as modern society appears to be.
As for the Venus being an 'extraordinary individual' -- I am going to demonstrate to you that this is unlikley:
If you look at the Venus, she isn't that outrageous obsese, just looks like a normal fat woman who has a BMI of about 38 and big boobs of about JJ cup size (boobs are not fat tissue but mainly mammary glands and the size does not change dramatically with weight gain or loss either, but is more determined by genetics and nursing).   That together with the raised vulva could possibly point towards it being connected with fertility.   It could also be a yardstick to show women how fat they should be before winter starts, let's do some comparions and sums:
The venus looks a little fatter than me, but not by much.  In fact, I very much look like the venus when nekkid, so, let's take me as a living example :)   I'm 1.56m and weigh 90kg, and I'm 42 years old.  My 'fat-free' weight is 58kg, so, I have 32kg extra on my ribs. I need about 2500 calories a day when I'm active. I have spare 32*7700 calories = 246400 calories,  which is only 100 days supply if there is complete starvation, 200 days if I have enough stores to provide 1250 calories daily.  100 days is 3 month -- so, I could survive one winter if the supplies were lost (bears, other tribes etc).  So, given this, one could claim that the Venus actually has the ideal figure for survival ;)  Btw, if the Venus was nursing a babe or small toddler (highly likely back then) her calorie requirement would be far higher, and so, the estimate of 100 days is rather conservative.  
Cinnamon
Ps.:  The article is rather judgemental about what constitutes 'ugly' -- please let people decide for themselves if they think it is ugly or not!  (I'm here because a customer ordered a pendant that looks like her, so, someone somewhere is still enjoying the art enough to order one at great expense from my studio, so don't knock it! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.218.135 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 September 2006  
:You have no idea what shape the food supply was for anyone back then. Just b/c humans are here now does not mean that starvation was not a regular problem. You can't catch that mammoth, you don't eat. Hence the popularity of agriculture. Duh.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Judgemental statements

message: Could we get sources for all the interpretations of this figure? A lot of the commentary seems to be wiki-editors opinions and the article provides no indication as to how accepted each interpretation (art/fertility/goddess, etc) is. Ashmoo 05:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for possible meaning

message: This was not the name for the piece before it was found. Someone named it Venus simply because it is female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenlight (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling her Venus

message: In all my art history classes my teachers insisted that modern scholars are careful to call this the "Woman of Willendorf", as the word "Venus" invites too many assumptions about this being a goddess, when in reality nobody knows exactly what it is.  I suggest calling the article the "Woman of Willendorf" and having "Venus of Willendorf" redirect here.  It's more accurate and contemporary.Rglong 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: such a stupid idea! the figurine is called "Venus of W." since the early 20th century. and a political over correct agenda is trying to change names! and presupposes anybody to be so stupid to confuse a Roman goddesses name with a paleolithic artifact...Mr. bobby (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: NAME CHANGE

message: It looks like the feet were carved to insert into a wooden base.  To have sat on some ancient mantlepiece.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.21.203 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feet 

message: Reminds me of a pregnant woman with steatopygia. 24.36.78.185 (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, she's just moderately fat. Pretty much half the female population would develop a figure like that for that BMI. Google "BBW pics" or something if you don't believe me - and you'll see that she is neither visibly pregnant, nor does she have steatopygia or any other unusual physiological features. Aadieu (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Aadieu, I hope you are not serious at all with your observed statements... What do "BBW pics" of the modern era have to do with a female carving from 25,000 years ago? Way to piece things together intellectually... Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pregnant? 

message: I suggest that no woman would ever carve this as a self portrait.  If a young woman wanted fertility they might very well be carving an attractive young man, not an obese woman.  I believe this was carved by a man as a type of prehistoric Penthouse magazine.  He was trying to create his ideal of a woman - young, pretty hair, submissive attitude, immense breasts, obese short stature and thick thighs.  It could be prehistoric visualization; if he carved her and prayed to her, maybe she would select him. Joanlutz (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In tribal societies, being fat is a luxury. It demonstrates superior survival traits and socio-"economic" success - basically rich and high status in modern terms. Furthermore, a woman in a hunter-gatherer society needs significantly less strength, speed, and agility, since she is mostly tending the kids, not chasing dinner with a crude spear, and hence can afford to keep a high body weight. Add to that the rather dramatic increases in fertility in above-average BMIs with wide hips and pendulous breasts in general, but especially in communities with intermittent food supply, and this gal becomes "prehistoric perfect". So, yeah, chances are, someone or someones were fapping to this! Aadieu (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "OBESE"?!? Please! In prehistoric times chances are women were giving birth immediately following puberty, continued until their death. Pregnancies deform women's bodies, even in the modern times - especially if the woman is giving birth on an average every 2-3 years. this is not the body of an obese woman, but the deformed body of a woman who has given birth, and nursed multiple children. hence a fertility symbol because she gives life.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.255.236.29 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prehistoric Penthouse 

message: It also reminds of an Onge woman (African) with the characteristic negrito "peppercorn hair". That is we can conclude saying that this figurine belong to Africa's continent.Davedawit (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be that women at the time cut their hair very short and the hair was curly. I'm not sure if we know of any migrations at the time that went directly from Africa to Central Europe. It is most commonly understood that the migrations to Central Europe originated in India, but perhaps the physical features of people from India were quite different back then, and more similar to those of their ancestors. Sphecidae (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negrito 'peppercorn hair' 

message: I added a brief discussion of and link to an article that, imho, explains this figurine and several of its analogs more logically and instructively than any of the other theories I've examined over the last two decades. If anyone has a problem with this addition, I'd appreciate discussing it with me before he or she redacts or removes anything in it. Thanks very much in advance. Berlant (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personified Mushroom Theory

message: This was raised before, see above, and an editor changed the lead a few hours ago. I can find sources saying 'Woman of Willendorf' is the term used by archaeologists usually, and  agrees with other sources saying the 'Venus' label is absurd. Which raises NPOV issues. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Venus", although a somewhat ironic name, is the standard term and is more widely used. We should stay with "Venus of Willendorf". — goethean ॐ 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about ironic - probably inappropriate, but still seems to be standard, and is very widely known indeed, even if it is often with a "so-called" these days. The additional name is currently unreferenced, so referencing the alternative would be a start. The matter can be raised with experts at the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Ice Age art event in October or November, I forget which, details coming soon.  In fact when she, and the whole Venus concept, came up in planning discussions there we stuck to the term itself, but that might have been a concession to non-expert usage.  We don't use the Hottentot Venus as an article title though. The Germans & French still use "Venus" too.   Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: this one source is from a book with the title "Woman And Art in Early Modern Latin America" - which shows that it has really minor importance! Mr. bobby (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change redux, should we change the title to Woman of Willendorf? Is the current name POV? 

message: The two photos on this page are of self-evidently different sculptures. Which one is real? If not the Venus of Willendorf, what is the other one? User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 03:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's right, but the smaller one was very fuzzy & I have swopped with a better frontal view from the huge choice at commons. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two sculptures 

message: The following was the end of the introduction:
"The Willendorf figure was named following a model already over fifty years old, and shares many characteristics with other figures."
However nowhere else on the page notes the word “fifty” and what that clause means is completely mysterious and unexplained.
I am guessing the intent is to communicate that female sculptures have been named “Venus” for the last 50 years before this particular statue was discovered, but I am at a loss for why this was not, you know, 'said' instead of awkwardly hinted-at.
--X883 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove completely confusing sentence 

message: The current edit now has conflicting dates for the age of the figurine in the OP and the infobox/first section, each with its own references. They can't both be correct. nagualdesign (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there were three sets of dates in all. Now all say "between about 28,000 and 25,000 BCE", following Khan, which is recent & will be properly researched. The museum is no help, nor the German article. Witcombe was too old & the other undated ref seemed very generalist.  Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, John. nagualdesign (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: This is sort of a "crapshoot" speculation, but in a group I frequent on Facebook, someone pointed out that, from the top down, the Venus of Willendorf's proportions look much more realistic. Knowing that mirrors were not widespread (or even really extant) at this point in prehistory, and so an artist's view of themselves would be entirely reliant on what they could see of themselves from their own eyes (and in murky reflections), perhaps this was an attempted work of self portraiture? (Or, if it is a fertility idol, perhaps the artist modeled it after themselves?)
I looked at a 3D replica of the statue here. http://www.123dapp.com/Scenes-and-Props/123C-3D-Model-Venus-of-Willendorf-Fertility-Statue/595811
Not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, even, but I think people might find it interesting. Sphecidae (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible work of self portraiture? 

message: Hello! I am a college student and working on this article for a class project. Please let me know if this is acceptable information for the main article. 
"The sac-like breasts, bulging belly, and padded hips conflate woman with her procreative function. She symbolizes health and abundance. But the masked face and withered arms disturbingly show that she has no sight, speech, or reach--no identity as an individual."
"It's an overtly sexual, earthy style: Many of the intricately carved figurines share features such as large, pendulous breasts, huge buttocks, and chubby legs with no feet...Moreover, during the Willendorf period, male figurines, many anatomically correct with penises and detailed facial features, also appear frequently, and occasional sculptures depict men and women side by side."
 
"[The Woman of Willendorf] is assumed by most archaeologists to have been the product of artistic fantasy. There is no way, they say, that a real woman in a hunter-gatherer society could have gotten that fat. But Barbara Calogero, of the University of Connecticut, who comes to archaeology by way of hospital nursing, begs to differ. Look closely at how the figure's fat collects behind the shoulders, drapes over her knees, and at the way her derriere rises nearly to her waist, and you'll see, Calogero argues, a particularly accurate portrayal of female plumpness."
Eharford (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Sources for New Content 

message: I never heard of such a stupid theory. No woman in her right mind would make herself out to look like a pregnant mammoth with no face. LOL! No, this is a man's depiction all the way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.229 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be much more useful to bring an argument instead of documenting your emotional articulations. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  They are not self-portraits 

message: I just had to give a big thank you to whoever included the 3D model of the statue. It made a huge difference to be able to "hold it in my hand" and take a proper look.
It immediately struck me that the figure - though exaggerated - looks extremely natural. "Venus" is definitely looking down upon herself, hence the lack of emphasis on any facial features. Furthermore, this is a self portrait of a woman fascinated by her own pregnancy and the changes in her body. The emphasis of her swelling breasts, belly and genitalia is obvious, particularly from the top down angle. Nothing about this strikes me as a fertility fetish. Its pose is very natural, and says self discovery. The 3D model also reveals the otherwise lost detail of the hands, the fingers of which are well sculpted. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 3D Model is wonderful

message: This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eharford.
:The 3D image is of a replica and not the original artefact. There are many notable differences. The backside lacks the indents for example. This should be removed or labelled as a replica. 2A00:23C7:A00C:9801:8D94:88E0:7356:F664 (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

message: An article referring to a scientific paper (but that paper and the journal in which it was published remains unnamed as far as I can see) discusses research on the geological/geographic source of the limestone from which the Venus (as they refer to it) was carved: https://www.heritagedaily.com/2022/02/origins-of-the-30000-year-old-venus-of-willendo-solved/142920 Kdammers (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  limestone source 

message: I heard (several times) another version: that she comes from today´s SILESIA. Was it a fake ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:AD90:C400:7135:78BE:2E8F:7A29 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silesia? 

message: In the terrific novel by James McBride, the statue plays an important (fictional) role. Given the success of the novel, this is probably how most people who have heard of the statue have encountered it (though many might not think to check Wikipedia and learn that such a statue actually exists). I think this literary reference should be noted in the Wikipedia article. BekraY (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrayal in Deacon King Kong by James McBride