Blog

16

I was reading about paleolithic art and culture and came upon the famous Venus of Willindorf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf). I was shocked to see that she is quite portly! From my understanding, there are several interpretations of what this particular figurine, and others like it from the same era, meant to our paleolithic ancestors, ranging from a goddess-like deity for a female-centric religion (maybe we could adopt that part of paleo-life too?! ha), to a self-portrait, to cave-man porn. My question is: if everyone in the paleo era was eating (ahem) paleo , then how does that square with the creation of such images of corpulent women? Is it possible that paleo women were actually this obese?

flag
4 
I've thought about this too :) Those sculptures represent fertility, and women need a minimum of fat to make babbies. – Korion Feb 1 2012 at 16:55
17 
I've always chalked it up to a case of "the grass is always greener", and idolizing whatever is the most difficult body to attain. We're just on the other side of the fence these days. Until just this last century prostitutes worked hard to stay plump so as to attract customers....and for some reason I have the song "Big Bottoms" from Spinal Tap stuck in my head now. – Happy Now Feb 1 2012 at 17:44
4 
I've wondered if a future era will dig up copies of Cosmo and GQ, and decide that's what people looked like today. – Aaron B. Apr 24 2012 at 15:28
You have to think back then 20000 years ago most religions where sex cults so it would make sense to over exaggerate the female body when its pregnant. That is what that Statue is. – matthew Jan 4 at 13:30

8 Answers

38

Most of the educators from whom I've learned about these statues and the culture surrounding them, from an anthropological standpoint, are pretty much in agreement that these images represent abundance in a culture that had to work hard for every bit of food... They represented fertility, over-abundance, and generosity. They weren't the 'ideal' for the culture, but were recognized as being a sort of unattainable 'perfect generosity'. This being said, it is to be noted that many "medicine women" or female shamans in cultures who shared (and still do share) that perception of the female 'creatress' tend to the rotund, and were typically generously fed by their people, even when other members of the group went hungry, because they were considered to be the "vessels" of their representation of divinity, and they did not want their divine personage to feel "restricted" or be unable to exercise her full power while in the shaman's body.

Male shamanic individuals, on the other hand, often practiced asceticism and would go long periods without food or drink, for similar reasons -- in their case, to avoid any personal physical condition that might prevent their male divinity from being able to fully take up residence -- there was the sense that, for men, greater physical presence tied them too much to the physical world, and prevented the necessary release of the body to their deities.

link|flag
1 
+1. Couldn't have said it better myself. – Caleb the Hobbit Feb 1 2012 at 17:27
1 
That's exactly the answer that surfaced in my mind when I saw the question. +1 – Nance Feb 1 2012 at 17:29
1 
Firestorm, thank you so much for your thoughtful answer! One follow-up question for you--do you have sources for the information in your answer that you could point me toward? – PaleoVenus Feb 1 2012 at 19:50
For sources, check out the work of Maria Gimbutas. – Kitzu Apr 23 2012 at 22:03
3

These carvings come from a period when the hunting of large herds of megafauna was at its peak.

The high density of large animals, compared to the low density of people, would have made hunting very different to our modern conception. There would very likely have been times of incredible bounty and also really low levels of food. However, the level of art , artifice and cultural development found from this era suggests it was an era of plenty - contrast this with the later mesolithic where the great herds disappeared and hunting changed to stalking with bows rather than communal battue spear hunts

It's also very likely that people in this time period didn't follow our version "paleo" diet. There would have been a much, much greater array of plant foods consumed and fruits and starchy tubers would have been the most valued things, with greens and dried meat providing a lot of the day to day calories. They would have been desperate to eat the very things we try to cut down on as this would help them get lots of calories. Surviving hunter gatherer diets in Australia put an emphasis on tubers and ground seeds provided by women and meat by men - this is worth noting as it runs counter to our perception but could as easily be an adaptation due to climate rather than representative of pre-agricultrual diets as a whole.

The basis of diet in the Paleolithic would have been similar to what we see as a Paleo diet, but with different priorities and food stuffs (no coconuts outside the tropics, bigger variety of green plants). Their diet would have been more seasonal than what many of us eat now with some periods of year (late summer and autumn) being times of high caloric intake and an abundunce of more carbohydrate rich foods. Winter diets would have relied more heavily on dried meats, frozen meats (it was an ice age after all) and other preserved foods. Spring would likely have been the trickiest time, with the diet again being more meat based as there's relatively little vegetation available.

It is probable that these Venus figures represent an idealised version, people who were plumper would have had some advantages and it could also be a symbol of status or of fertility. There would certainly have been times of enough surplus for people to become overweight and there would have been some interest in foods which are linked to getting the Venus shape.

I'm in no way wishing to criticise the modern "Paleo" diet - I think it makes evolutionary sense, works well and helps create healthy, happy people. I just think it is an over-simplification of what people actually ate in the late Paleolithic era.

Some sources of interest: Modern stone age hunter gatherer experimental living in Norway http://livingprimitively.com/ Ray Mears & Gordon Hillman Wild Food (not the best wild food book but with lots linking it to the mesolithic era) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wild-Food-Ray-Mears/dp/0340827904 Archaeological article on starch in the mesolithic (PDF) http://sites.google.com/site/mesolithicmiscellany/journal-information/journal-volumes/18.2.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1 Types of meat eaten by paleolithic cultures in France (PDF) http://faculty.washington.edu/grayson/jas25.pdf An interesting dissertation which touches on diet in Paleolithic Portugal http://www.scribd.com/doc/21744890/Diet-and-subsistence-in-Upper-Paleolithic-Portugal#page=36

link|flag
1 
"t is probable that these Venus figures represent an idealised version, people who were plumper would have had some advantages and it could also be a symbol of status or of fertility." That's basically what firestorm was saying I think. Not sure the variation in the modern paleo diet has much to do with it. – PaleoVenus Apr 24 2012 at 21:38
3

Could it be because Paleo woman actually had a high bodyfat percentage?

Could it be because high bodyfat (by modern-paleo standards) is actually healthy?

Could it be because having high bodyfat (by modern-paleo standards) is actually sexually desirable?

http://huntgatherlove.com/content/why-women-need-fat WFS

link|flag
3 
Fitness in the evo sense doesn't mean Crossfit. It's means the ability to have babies, lots of them, and have them survive the first year. Living in small bands, people lived with the real possibility of having their tribe totally die out. They worshipped fertility. And we know women with 22% body fat are the most fertile with the most regular periods. In my yoga class I see former dancers who boast about their 17% body fat, but then wonde why they can't get preggers. Modern standards of "fitness" are anti-evo fitness. – GurlzLuvSteak Apr 24 2012 at 13:47
1 
HERE, HERE! But, did you actually look at the statuette? that's not 22% body fat... – PaleoVenus Apr 24 2012 at 17:38
That statuette does look obese and obesity isn't usually helpful in fertility is it? – Warren D Apr 24 2012 at 20:47
And none of the statuettes look preggers, or are shown holding a baby, etc. That's the argument I keep reading about in opposition to the theory that these figures are a representation of fertility. – PaleoVenus Apr 24 2012 at 21:35
1 
Ms. Venus looks plenty preggers to me - with big milk-swollen baby bottles. :) However it's important to note that we have about 100 such female images, some clearly and intensely gravid, some merely with lots of junk in da trunk, and some of "normal" weight. Some of them are fertility idols, some are probably not. It's tough to tell with art - will future people look at a Picasso? Or that the Egyptians were really 2D? :) Few cultures have literal, perspective-oriented art as we in the West do. Each image has to be considered in context: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/ap3a.1 – IfYouSaySo Apr 24 2012 at 23:03
2

It all boils down to perspective. Paleo women didn't have mirrors. It's what they thought their bodies looked like just from what they could see of themselves looking downward. In my anthropology of gender class we had Dr. Leroy McDermott present his research into this topic - really interesting stuff!

http://ucmo.edu/art/facstaff/documents/Self-RepresentationinUpperPaleolithicFemaleFigurines.pdf

link|flag
1 
this paper is fascinating: "As self-portraits of women at different stages of life, these early figurines embodied obstetrical and gynecological information and probably signified an advance in women's self-conscious control over the material conditions of their reproductive lives." Very interesting theory and makes me wonder how the body distortions that occur from self-visualization affect women today (even with mirrors). – PaleoVenus Apr 24 2012 at 21:32
So these figurines were self portraits? – Happy Now Apr 24 2012 at 22:58
Yep. Dr. McDermott argues that women made the figurines based on their perception of their own bodies, possibly to document the stages of puberty or pregnancy, and to serve as health records or ritual objects. – Grace Apr 25 2012 at 16:17
2

I was just listening to a podcast on this- so, the gene or whatever that predisposes one to be fat did manifest itself in the Paleolithic era- very infrequently, however. It is likely that very infrequence, coupled with the fertility-related things that other people responded with, that made it so attractive. It did exist, obesity in the Paleolithic, just not often.

link|flag
link to the podcast please?! sounds like a good one. – PaleoVenus Jul 20 at 16:20
1 
Honestly, it wasn't that good- I tried listening to Robb Wolf's podcasts for a bit, but I don't find them that informative or interesting, really. But you may disagree, here you go! robbwolf.com/2012/03/27/… – Celine Jul 20 at 20:20
thanks! appreciate the link (and the refreshing opinion on RW) – PaleoVenus Jul 27 at 20:18
0

Obese people ate the most food.

They had the resources to obtain the most food.

That is attractive.

Maybe?

link|flag
0

they survived the famines and men arent valued like that (see media reaction to missing man vs missing woman)

link|flag
0

The women were fat, how did they know how obesity curves?

link|flag

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.