"D. Tweed" wrote:
>
>> What about all those paleolithic venuses?  Maybe those
>> sculptors were describing what they saw around them.
>
> Could you clarify precisely which time & place sculptures you
> are are referring to here please? Its quite possible that these > are the way they are because they're accurate renderings of
> reality, but from __what little I know of the area__, physical
> sculpting by chipping away at marble and other rocks doesn't > make it particularly easy to have `thin' sections

 I'm fairly certain she was referring to the upper paleolithic venus
figurines, which are thought to be symbols of female fecundity, and
which are quite clearly obese, and maybe pregnant, but that's less
obvious. It is also quite clear that they're not the way they are
because of limitations of the medium or the artist's technique. They
show a pretty high level of technical mastery. The best known example is
the Venus of Willendorf, which is from about 20k B.C. The figures are
idealizations, but it doesn't seem likely that they were purely
imagined. They are too realistic. The artist must have had a physical
model of female obesity. Here's a link to a picture:
<http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/>
 It seems pretty reasonable to think that even in a hunter-gatherer
society you could have a matriarch that had a life of leisure, and that
with abundant plant and animal foods and no requirement for physical
exertion, this person could become obese, even if most of the tribe was
lean and muscular. They wouldn't have had ANY of our modern notions of
health. Being fat could have been a great status symbol.
 Art says it's easy not to become fat in the first place, and I think
that's true, but it's only easy if it's easy. I mean, if you have the
necessary knowledge and motivation, it's easy. But if you don't, it's
very difficult.

Hilary McClure
Danville, VT