Witcombe, C. 2003. “Women in Prehistory: The “Venus” of Willendorf” http://www.asu.edu/cfa/wwwcourses/art/SOACore/Willendorf_portfolio.htm
Witecombe’s article was useful in conveying the material the figure was carved from, oolitic limestone. He defined the material because nonnative towards the region, which he deduced that the number must have traveled there coming from another region. Witecombe likewise described the method the Morgenstern of Willendorf must have recently been carved coming from, flint equipment. Flint tools were not utilized locally during the period of the region the artifact was discovered.
Witecombe’s article was not useful in describing how this kind of prehistoric creature was given its title. Harding, J. 3rd there�s r. 1976. “Certain Upper Palaeolithic ‘Venus’ Statuettes Considered with regards to the Pathological Condition Known as Massive Hypertrophy of the Breasts” Man, Fresh Series, Vol. 11, No . 2, Summer, 271-272
Harding has a completely different idea of how come the Abendstern of Willendorf was carved. He believes that the prehistoric figure shows that of a girl with large hypertrophy from the breasts.
The person who also made the figure might have been the medicine person or somebody intrigued by this condition. Harding argues the fact that condition is present in the height of the statuette, the excess mammary development with regards to the size of the thighs, sides and belly. He thinks that the hand(s) seen on the breasts may well that of the medicine man. Harding also offers the knowledge that the lines portrayed within the Venus of Willendorf will be possibly previous incisions manufactured by the medicine gentleman as part of his treatment.
Soffer, O., Adovasio, J. Meters., Hyland, G. C. 2000. “The “Venus” Figurines: Materials, Basketry, Male or female, and Position in the Higher Paleolithic” Current Anthropology, Volume. 41, No . 4, August/October, 1-53
This post was useful in describing the garment worn on the mind of the statuette and its use. The clothing provided realistic details of a fiber-based, weaved hat or cap. More closely evaluated, there definitely seems to be a knotted center on top of the middle of the garment, which the weaves spiral radially from. The garment is definitely intricately comprehensive including get across stitches and interrupted areas in which new fabric have been added. Previous research has business lead the creators of this article to trust that females during the Upper Paleolithic frequently wore little to no clothing. Naturally , this perception may not be true according to the season. Therefore , the authors stipulate that all their assumption in the use of the garment should not be taken at face worth.
Johnson, Big t. 1978. “Fertility Symbolism and Birth Rock-Paintings from the Southern Cape Province” The Southern African Archaeological Bulletin, Volume. 33, Number 128, 168-172
Johnson’s document was especially helpful to understand a different perspective of the Venus of Willendorf. He helps the idea that the figure was carved to represent fertility. He notes there are no face features and later the moderate hint of any neck shows up. The lower body system attracts all of the attention from the viewer. The well pronounced features occur most often while pregnant, breast feeding and steatopygia. These types of features incorporate exaggerated thighs, stomach, buttocks and breasts. He additional examines different works of art from the Upper Paleolithic only to find various paintings of mother-and-child relationships amongst pets or animals and individuals.
McCoid, C., McDermott, L. 1996. “Toward Decolonizing Gender: Female Vision in the Top Paleolithic” New Series, Vol. 98, Number 2, Summer, 319-326
This article explained who also the artist may have been with the Venus of Willendorf, women. Several modern day pictures were captured of any pregnant woman looking at their self from diverse angles. They then were in comparison to different sights of the statuette. The authors hint the proportions with the figure can only be associated with by a pregnant woman. While pregnant, the lower body is not visible by the woman due to her protruding stomach. Therefore , the narrowing hip and legs and disproportionately small ft make sense. The Venus of Willendorf is essentially a self-portrait of the designer. The creators also researched that this particular statuette is owned by a group of others that are related. They were almost all carved by simply members of a cult of human virility. Also, the concept the numbers were element of obstetrical aids helping to observe the progress of the women’s pregnancy was explored.
Farber, A. 2011. “Introduction: Why Art Record? ” http://www.oneonta.edu/faculty/farberas/arth/arth200/Body/introduction.htm
This source was particularly within describing the discovery and physical information of the Venus of Willendorf. Faber delivers that the physique was present in Austria close to the town of Willendorf. Students named that after Morgenstern, who was the Roman goddess of love, often depicted while nude. The statuette can be small , measures as just 4 ¼ inches excessive, fitting in the palm of one’s hand. Faber states that it comes from the Paleoltihic period, also known as the old stone age. College students assume that the artwork is dated between 20, 000 and 31, 000 BCE and is manufactured from limestone. Faber contrasts the Venus of Willendorf towards the Venus sobre Milo. Whilst they are by different intervals the image is a same. The Venus sobre Milo is often depicted since elegant unlike the Abendstern of Willendorf because of the size and roughness of the area.
Jewell, R. 2002 “Mythology-Stories of Who also We Are” http://www.tc.umn.edu/~jewel001/humanities/book/4mythology.htm Jewell shares a religious aspect of the Venus of Willendorf.
This individual supports the idea that the statuette was a subject used in virility rituals. That is why there is no importance to the face, only the overstated development of the breasts, belly and upper thighs. The narrowing of the legs and toes allow for the figure to be placed into the floor. Jewell stocks and shares that proof suggests many early nationalities believed in some sort of female fertility power or beings. This individual backs his claim with research of cave drawings and other nude female statistics from the same period. Jewell sites that Anna Freud and Esther Harding have discussed the religious function women performed in moving, singing and chanting into a female electrical power or deities. The figure was likely sculpted throughout a time the moment females a new higher position in contemporary society. Hornblower, G. D. 1929. “Predynastic Characters of Women and the Successors”
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 15, No . one particular, May, 29-47
Hornblower publishes articles an article talking about another researcher’s thoughts in the Venus of Willendorf, Mr. Shattock. His article is useful to exclude steatopygy of the figurine. Mister. Shattock disagrees that the statuette suffers from steatopygy. He says that the term should only be used for enlargements where the thighs alone happen to be excessive or the body in enlarged side to side. The simple fact that the Morgenstern of Willendorf has broad hips makes his thought correct. Consequently , the statuette suffers from overweight. Shattock proves because of this fact, there could be no comparability between historic and present day people, nor can there be relationship between their race.
Jennett, K. 08. “Female Figurines of the Higher Paleolithic”, twenty seven, https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/3202/fulltext.pdf
Jennett writes an appealing article and notes how the vaginal part of the Venus of Willendorf is very much detailed. The arms in the figurine cross over her bigger breasts and she has zero facial features. However , as opposed to the previous content I have examine, Jennett does not justify this is of these qualities. Jennett provides finally presented a more in depth answer about the figurines discovery. The lady cites, the figurine was found in Luxembourg “in an Aurignacian loess deposit within a terrace about thirty metres above the Danube river nearby the town of Willedorf” in 1908 simply by Josef Szombathy (Witcombe 2003; McDermott mil novecentos e noventa e seis: 233). Jennett gives the regarding the Morgenstern of Willendorf as twenty, 000-18, 500 BCE and states that this can be competitive up to twenty four, 000-22, 1000 BCE (Witcombe 2003). Jennett also cites another depth of the figurine that was interesting, it seems that the Morgenstern of Willedorf had been “painted with reddish colored ochre” (Marshack 1972: 288). She identifies red ochre as a “symbolic substance typically found in connection with burials and gravegoods in the same period period”. (Jennett, 2008)
Ogborn, M. 2003. “Prehistoric Art”, http://www.students.sbc.edu/ogborn03/prehistoricart.htm
Ogborn’s article details in superb detail a directory of theories offered by many analysts about the goal of the Morgenstern of Willendorf. He claims that some theories call up the porcelain figurine a “Mother Goddess” designed to represent the fertility of crops and future contemporary society. He cites Margaret Ehrenberg who thinks that is bogus when considering the idea systems with the forager societies “who happen to be closely in touch with the natural world and whose very own social devices are based on better equality than that of later on socially stratified societies, commonly center on basic spirits and forces, rather than personified gods and goddesses (74). ” Darwin shows that before patriarchal societies existed, females got predominant jobs. Ogborn claims that LeRoy McDermott believes the porcelain figurine was one of many carved by simply a woman, which represents herself. The item was then simply used like a learning tool for young generations to tell of the changing stages of your woman, “maturation, menstruation, accouplement, pregnancy, beginning, and lactation”. Another more abstract theory is provided by Clive Gamble. He believes that the Venus of Willendorf can easily have been part of a grouping of female collectible figurines. Gamble cites, “that the figurines were left while markers in open areas during the zenith of glaciation for other nomadic people while one-tribe retreats to regional grotte.
1
