 Venus of Villendorf. Oldest art in the world. A fertility figure, a good luck totem, a mother goddess symbol, or even evidence of ice age obesity, the Venus of Villendorf is an enigma of the ages, said to be at least 30,000 years old. This little limestone figurine has been the subject of constant debate as to what it is representing since its discovery in 1908 in Austria. Now housed in Vienna's very famous Natural History Museum, the would-be observer is always captivated by the dating of such an elaborate object. Ulytic limestone from which the object is carved does not occur naturally in Austria, so it's likely it came from Sweden or Holland and that she was an ice age goddess. Lacking any facial features or even feet and with pronounced areas of overhanging fat and arms tucked under her seemingly huge breast, in contrast to her body mass, with her entire head covered with either braided hair or knitted distinctive ballo calvo. The significance of the braided head covering is not yet understood, but the Venus is one of the oldest ornamental pieces of art ever discovered in the entire world. Although generally projected in art history classrooms to be several feet tall, this limestone figurine is petite in size. She measures just 4.5 inches high and can fit comfortably in the palm of your hand. This small scale was very deliberate and allowed whoever carried her to carry it during their nearly daily nomadic travels. Clearly the paleolithic sculptor who made this small figurine would never have named it the Venus of Villendorf. Instead Venus was the name of the Roman goddess of love and ideal beauty and when discovered outside the Austrian village of its namesake, Villendorf, scholars mistakenly assumed that this figure was likewise a goddess of love and beauty with absolutely no evidence that the Venus shared a function similar to its classically inspired namesake. However incorrect the name may be, it has endured and tells us more about those who found her than those who made her. Dating too can be a problem, especially since prehistoric art, by definition, has no written record and in fact, as foretold, as fact anyway, the definition of the word prehistoric itself is that written language did not yet exist. So the creator of the Venus, it is assumed, could not have carved the date on the back, but if art and a creator existed then communication must have been a thing to relay the message that the Venus conveyed, right? In addition, stone artifacts present a special problem since we are interested in the date that the stone was carved, not the date of the material itself can be dated. Despite these hurdles, art historians and archeologists have attempted, admirably it must be said, to establish dates for prehistoric finds through two processes. With the first process called relative dating and the second involves an examination of the stratification of an object's discovery. Relative dating is an easily understood process that involves stylistically comparing an object whose date is uncertain to other objects whose dates have been firmly established and by correctly fitting the unknown object into this stylistic chronology, scholars can find a very general chronological date for an object. The second way scholars dated the Venus is through an analysis of where it was found. Generally, the deeper an object is recovered from the earth, the longer that object has been buried. Because of the depth of which these objects are found, we can infer that they are very old indeed. In this case, 30,000 years according to materials found at the same depth which can be comfortably dated. In the absence of writing, art historians rely on the objects themselves to learn about ancient peoples and the form of the Venus, that is, what it looks like. May very well inform what it originally meant, maybe. The most conspicuous elements of her anatomy are those that deal with the process of reproduction and child rearing. And it seems that the artist took particular care to emphasize her breast, which some scholars suggest indicate that she is able to nurse a child and that the artist also brought deliberate attention to her genital region with traces of red ochre, which can still be seen on parts of the figurine. In contrast, the sculptor placed scant attention on the non-reproductive parts of her body, and this is particularly noticeable in the figure's limbs, where there is little emphasis placed on musculature or anatomical accuracy. We may conclude from the small size of her feet that she was not meant to be freestanding and was either meant to be carried or placed lying down. The artist carved the figure's upper arms along her upper torso and her lower arms are only barely visible resting upon her breast. As inedmatic as the lack of attention to her limbs is, the absence of attention to the face is even more striking. No eyes, no ears or mouth remain visible. Instead, our attention is drawn to seven horizontal bands that are wrapped in concentric circles from the crown of her head. Some scholars have suggested her head is obscured by a knit cap pulled downward. Others suggest that these forms may represent braided or beaded hair and that her face, perhaps once painted, is angled downward. If the face was purposefully obscured, the paleolithic sculptor may have created not a portrait of a particular person, but rather a representation of the reproductive and child-rearing aspects of a woman. In combination with the emphasis on the breast and pubic area, it seems likely that the Venus of Villendorf had a function that related to fertility. Without a doubt, we can learn much more from the Venus than its diminutive size might at first suggest. We learn about relative dating and stratification, and we can even learn that these nomadic people living almost 30,000 years ago who cared so much about making objects beautiful. And we can also learn that these paleolithic people had an awareness of the importance of woman and the survival of our kind in a settling on this earth that we are only beginning to re-establish. These things were lost and forgotten about, and this proves a separation from a pre-civilization to that of today. We are dealing with a prehistory and the Ice Age was about survival during these cataclysmic times. And understanding in the traumatic mind was essential, and perhaps this Venus was an educational tool for schooling the young. Over-emphasizing the reproductive organs and teaching about the true miracle of the female body, which a huge emphasis, even in ancient times, that facial beauty in women is relatively insignificant. And perhaps the woman we end up with are predestined to catch our eyes. But what do you guys think about this anyway? Comments below and as always, thank you for watching.