Venus of Hohle Fels
Artist: Unknown
Year: Upper Paleolithic - 35,000 and 40,000 years ago
Type: Carved Figurine (Wooly Mammoth Tusk)
Dimensions: 2.4 Inches High (6 cm)
Location: Schelklingen, Germany
Brief History: The 40,000 year old figurine of a voluptuous woman carved from mammoth ivory and excavated from a cave in southwestern Germany is the oldest known example of three-dimensional or figurative representation of humans and sheds new light on the origins of art, researchers reported Wednesday.
The intricately carved headless figure is at least 5,000 years older than previous examples and dates from shortly after the arrival of modern humans in Europe. It exhibits many of the characteristics of fertility, or Venus, figurines carved millenniums later.
The figurine was excavated at Hohle Fels, a large cave in the Swabian Jura region about 14 miles southwest of the city of Ulm. The cave shows evidence of a long period of prehistoric occupation. The new figurine was found in six pieces about 9 feet below the cave floor. Nearby were flint-knapping debris, worked bone and ivory, and remains of horses, reindeer, cave bears, mammoths and ibexes.
Radiocarbon data indicate that the layer originated 35,000 to 40,000 years ago.
The figure, about 2.4 inches tall, was carved from a mammoth tusk. It has broad shoulders, prominent breasts and intricately detailed buttocks and genitalia, all grossly exaggerated.
The figurine has two short arms with carefully carved hands resting on the upper part of the stomach; part of the left arm and shoulder are missing. One hand has five fingers, the other four.
The legs are short, pointed and asymmetrical, with the left noticeably shorter, typical of later Venus figurines. Also typical, the figure has no head. Instead, it has a carefully carved ring above the left shoulder. The polished surface of the ring suggests that the figurine was worn as an ornament around the neck.
Many researchers believe that they were fertility totems, but their ultimate meaning may remain a mystery.
An Artists Thoughts: Francis Bacon wrote, "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion", I believe that our earliest ancestors understood that beauty was a woman who showed a full figure and the ability (see: large breasts) to provide for her offspring.
Beauty has changed throughout the ages, body types morph into what is considered gorgeous, sexy, and accepted. Look at the movie industry for example some of the most beautiful women in the 1920s-1950s were Marion Davies, Greta Garbo, Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, Grace Kelly, Ava Gardner, and Elizabeth Taylor. They graced the posters and walls of many men, and were thought to be the epitome of beauty and grace. In 2011 I highly doubt that any of these women would land the starring role in a motion picture. They would be turned away at the door, saying they were too heavy or not pretty enough.
The same goes for a women's pregnancy. In the early part of the 20th century pregnant women were expected to be covered and take it easy, often confined to their beds. But today women wear pretty much the same things they would if they weren't pregnant, and continue on with their day to day lives. I think the women's movement helped a great deal in that department too. I do think that people find pregnant women more beautiful in the 21st century, before they were thought to be in a weakened state. Now they are seen as strong and gorgeous, often with a glow about them.
The way women are viewed post-pregnancy in this day and age is something that is hard to swallow. Look through any gossip magazine and you will see slender actresses and supermodels who show off their "post-baby bods" only weeks after giving birth. They are applauded and shown always in the most flattering of ways, having looked no different than before the pregnancy. Then comes along Pink. Just days after giving birth, she and her husband decide to go to the beach and she makes all the headlines! Showing that she still has a pregnancy belly, and that her face appears fuller, she was not applauded, she was seen as weak and frumpy. All for becoming pregnant and gaining weight.
Now I'm sure if I was a thin person, I would look at all of this in a different light. I wouldn't be sitting here complaining about how women are judged on their weight and what the views on beauty are. I'd probably be talking about how this figurine is ugly, and that our ancient ancestors must have been crazy for thinking that this could ever pass for beautiful. But I'm not, so you're stuck reading this.
I truly think that Homo sapiens saw something beautiful when they carved this. If it was used for fertility, then those who sought its help must have felt the same way too. To use the oft quoted cliche: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And for our ancient ancestors, they found beauty in what we would call ugly.
So well put. I have to agree with everything you said. Although, I disagree with your statement about looking at it different if you were thin person. You have an artistic eye for things, so even then, I think you would still view things in the nature of what was considered beautiful at that time.
ReplyDeleteWhen Henry VIII was king, heaviness was a sign of wealth. It meant that the person could afford to have food. Nevermind that it was unhealthy and gluttonous. Now, a lot of people are extremely health conscious, which can be a good thing.
But you're definitely right about the views of beauty. Things have changed drastically. In Ancient Sparta, women who could produce multiple children were honored. So much so, that husbands could allow other men to have their wives give them a child. It sounds weird to us, but for them for a woman to be able to be that fertile, was a wonderful thing.
As you pointed out, now it's all a matter of how much a woman can look like her pre-pregnancy body.
As I told you when I showed you the pic, my only thought was about the back problems the woman would have if she were real, lol. But you've explored this wonderfully and I've loved seeing what you had to say! :-D Thanks for sharing!