Prehistoric religion

Religion prior to the Upper Paleolithic is speculative,[13] and the Lower Paleolithic in particular has no clear evidence of religious practice.[29] Not even the loosest evidence for ritual exists prior to 500,000 years before the present, though archaeologist Gregory J. Wightman notes the limits of the archaeological record means their practice cannot be thoroughly ruled out.[33] The early hominins of the Lower Paleolithic—an era well before the emergence of H. s. sapiens—slowly gained, as they began to collaborate and work in groups, the ability to control and mediate their emotional responses. Their rudimentary sense of collaborative identity laid the groundwork for the later social aspects of religion.[34]

Reconstructed Australopithecus sediba man

Australopithecus, the first hominins,[note 3] were a pre-religious people. Though twentieth-century historian of religion Mircea Eliade felt that even this earliest branch on the human evolutionary line "had a certain spiritual awareness", the twenty-first century's understanding of Australopithecene cognition does not permit the level of abstraction necessary for spiritual experience.[13][16] For all that the hominins of the Lower Paleolithic are read as incapable of spirituality, some writers read the traces of their behaviour such as to permit an understanding of ritual, even as early as Australopithecus. Durham University professor of archaeology Paul Pettitt reads the AL 333 fossils, a group of Australopithecus afarensis found together near Hadar, Ethiopia, as perhaps deliberately moved to the area as a mortuary practice.[37] Later Lower Paleolithic remains have also been interpreted as bearing associations of funerary rites, particularly cannibalism. Though archaeologist Kit W. Wesler states "there is no evidence in the Lower Paleolithic of the kind of cultural elaboration that would imply a rich imagination or the level of intelligence of modern humans", he discusses the findings of Homo heidelbergensis bones at Sima de los Huesos and the evidence stretching from Germany to China for cannibal practices amongst Lower Paleolithic humans.[38]

A number of skulls found in archaeological excavations of Lower Paleolithic sites across diverse regions have had significant proportions of the brain cases broken away. Writers such as Hayden speculate that this marks cannibalistic tendencies of religious significance; Hayden, deeming cannibalism "the most parsimonious explanation", compares the behaviour to hunter-gatherer tribes described in written records to whom brain-eating bore spiritual significance. By extension, he reads the skull's damage as evidence of Lower Paleolithic ritual practice.[39] For the opposite position, Wunn finds the cannibalism hypothesis bereft of factual backing; she interprets the patterns of skull damage as a matter of what skeletal parts are more or less preserved over the course of thousands or millions of years. Even within the cannibalism framework, she argues that the practice would be more comparable to brain-eating in chimpanzees than in hunter-gatherers.[13] In the 2010s, the study of Paleolithic cannibalism grew more complex due to new methods of archaeological interpretation, which led to the conclusion much Paleolithic cannibalism was for nutritional rather than ritual reasons.[40]

Venus of Berekhat Ram

In the Upper Paleolithic, religion is associated with symbolism and sculpture. One Upper Paleolithic remnant that draws cultural attention are the Venus figurines, carved statues of nude women speculated to represent deities, fertility symbols, or ritual fetish objects.[41] Archaeologists have proposed the existence of Lower Paleolithic Venus figurines. The Venus of Berekhat Ram is one such highly speculative figure, a scoria dated 300–350 kya[note 4] with several grooves interpreted as resembling a woman's torso and head. Scanning electron microscopy found the Venus of Berekhat Ram's grooves consistent with those that would be produced by contemporary flint tools. Pettitt argues that though the figurine "can hardly be described as artistically achieved", it and other speculative Venuses of the Lower Paleolithic, such as the Venus of Tan-Tan, demand further scrutiny for their implications for contemporary theology.[44] These figurines were possibly produced by H. heidelbergensis, whose brain sizes were not far behind those of Neanderthals and H. s. sapiens, and have been analysed for their implications for the artistic understanding of such early hominins.[45]

The tail end of the Lower Paleolithic saw a cognitive and cultural shift. The emergence of revolutionary technologies such as fire, coupled with the course of human evolution extending development to include a true childhood and improved bonding between mother and infant, perhaps broke new ground in cultural terms. It is in the last few hundred thousand years of the period that the archaeological record begins to demonstrate hominins as creatures that influence their environment as much as they are influenced by it. Later Lower Paleolithic hominins built wind shelters to protect themselves from the elements; they collected unusual natural objects; they began the use of pigments such as red ochre. These shifts do not coincide with species-level evolutionary leaps, being observed in both H. heidelbergensis and H. erectus.[46] Different authors interpret these shifts with different levels of skepticism, some seeing them as a spiritual revolution and others as simply the beginning of the beginning. While the full significance of these changes is difficult to discern, they clearly map to an advance in cognitive capacity in the directions that would eventually lead to religion.[13][39][46]

Ukrainian stamp depicting Middle Paleolithic hunt

The Middle Paleolithic was the era of coterminous Neanderthal and H. s. sapiens (anatomically modern human) habitation. H. s. sapiens originated in Africa and Neanderthals in Eurasia; over the course of the period, H. s. sapiens range expanded to areas formerly dominated by Neanderthals, eventually supplanting them and ushering in the Upper Paleolithic.[47] Much is unknown about Neanderthal cognition, particularly the capacities that would give rise to religion.[11] Religious interpretations of Neanderthals have discussed their possibly-ritual use of caves,[48] their burial practices,[49] and religious practices amongst H. s. sapiens hunter-gatherer tribes in recorded history considered to have similar lifestyles to Neanderthals.[3][22] Pre-religious interpretations of Neanderthals argue their archaeological record suggests a lack of creativity or supernatural comprehension,[11] that Neanderthal-associated archaeological findings are too quickly ascribed religious motive,[13] and that the genetic and neurological remnants of Neanderthal skeletons do not permit the cognitive complexity required for religion.[16]

While the Neanderthals dominated Europe, Middle Paleolithic H. s. sapiens ruled Africa. Middle Paleolithic H. s. sapiens, like its Neanderthal contemporaries, bears little obvious trace of religious practice. The art, tools, and stylistic practice of the era's H. s. sapiens are not suggestive of the complexity necessary for spiritual belief and practice.[50] However, the Middle Paleolithic is long, and the H. s. sapiens who lived in it heterogeneous. Models of behavioural modernity disagree on how humanity became behaviourally and cognitively sophisticated, whether as a sudden emergence in the Upper Paleolithic or a slow process over the last hundred thousand years of the Middle Paleolithic; supporters of the second hypothesis point to evidence of increasing cultural, ritual, and spiritual sophistication 150,000–50,000 years ago.[51]

Neanderthal-made engraved flint, found in a child's grave

Neanderthals were the earliest hominins[note 5] to bury their dead,[23] although not the chronologically first burials, as earlier burials (such as those of the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins) are recorded amongst early H. s. sapiens.[54] Though relatively few Neanderthal burials are known, spaced thousands of years apart over broad geographical ranges, Hayden argues them undeniable hallmarks of spiritual recognition and "clear indications of concepts of the afterlife".[23] Though Pettitt is more cautious about the significance of Neanderthal burial, he deems it a sophisticated and "more than prosaic" practice. Pettitt deems the Neanderthals of at least southwest France, Germany, and the Levant possessive of clear mortuary rites he presumes linked to an underlying belief system. He calls particular attention to potential grave markers found around Neanderthal burials, particularly those of children, at La Ferrassie in Dordogne.[55]

One matter discussed in the context of Neanderthal burial is grave goods, objects placed in graves that are frequently seen in early religious cultures. Outside of the controversial Shanidar IV "flower burial", now considered coincidence, Neanderthals are not seen to bury their dead with grave goods.[52] However, a burial of an adult and child of the Kizil-Koba culture was accompanied by a flint stone with markings. In 2018, a team at the French National Centre for Scientific Research published their analysis that the markings were intentionally made and possibly held symbolic significance.[56]

Red pigments found in Grottes du Pech-de-l'Azé

The archaeological record preserves Neanderthal associations with red pigments and quartz crystals. Hayden states "it is inconceivable to me that early hunting and gathering groups would have been painting images or decorating their bodies without some kind of symbolic or religious framework for such activities"; he draws comparison to the use of red ochre amongst those modern hunter-gatherers to whom it represents a sacred colour. He similarly connects quartz collection to religious use of crystals in later shamanic practice.[57] Not all writers are as convinced that this represents underlying spiritual experience. To Mark Nielsen, evidence of ritual practice amongst Neanderthals does not represent religion; he interprets their cultural remnants, such as the rare cave art they produced, as insufficiently sophisticated for such comprehension. Rather, Neanderthal orthopraxy is a cultural teaching mechanism that permitted their unusually stable culture, existing at the same technological level for hundreds of thousands of years during rapid H. s. sapiens change. To Nielsen, Neanderthal ritual is how they preserved an intractable culture via teachings passed down through generations.[21]

Ultimately, Neanderthal religion is speculative, and hard evidence for religious practice exists only amongst Upper Paleolithic H. s. sapiens.[13][58] Though Hayden and to some degree Pettitt take a spiritualised interpretation of Neanderthal culture, these interpretations are unclear at best; as Pettitt says, "the very real possibility exists that religion sensu stricto is a unique characteristic of symbolically and linguistically empowered Homo sapiens".[59] Other writers, such as Wunn, find the concept of Neanderthal religion "mere speculation" that at best is an optimistic interpretation of the archaeological record.[13] What ritual Neanderthals had, rather than supernatural, is oft interpreted as a mechanism of teaching and social bonding. Matt J. Rossano, defining Neanderthal practice as "proto-religion", compares it to "purely mimetic community activities" such as marching, sports, and concerts. He understands it not as a veneration of spirits or deities, but rather a bonding and social ritual that would later evolve into supernatural faith.[11] In 2019 Gibraltarian palaeoanthropologists Stewart, Geraldine and Clive Finlayson and Spanish archaeologist Francisco Guzmán speculated that the golden eagle had iconic value to Neanderthals, as exemplified in some modern human societies because they reported that golden eagle bones had a conspicuously high rate of evidence of modification compared to the bones of other birds. They then proposed some "Cult of the Sun Bird" where the golden eagle was a symbol of power.[26][27]

73,000-year-old red marks on stone, the oldest known H. s. sapiens art

H. s. sapiens emerged in Africa as early as 300,000 years ago.[60] In the Middle Paleolithic, particularly its first couple hundred thousand years, the archaeological record of H. s. sapiens is barely distinguishable from their Neanderthal and H. heidelbergensis contemporaries. Though these first H. s. sapiens demonstrated some ability to construct shelter, use pigments, and collect artifacts, they yet lacked the behavioural sophistication associated with humans today.[51] The process through which H. s. sapiens became cognitively and culturally sophisticated is known as behavioural modernity. The emergence of behavioural modernity is unclear; traditionally conceptualised as a sudden shock around the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, modern accounts more often understand it as a slow process throughout the late Middle.[61]

Where behavioural modernity is conceptualised as originating in the Middle Paleolithic, some authors also push back the traditional framework of religion's origin to account for it. Wightman discusses Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa, inhabited 180,000 years ago by early H. s. sapiens and filled with unusual objects such as quartz crystals and inscribed stones. He argues these may have been ritual artifacts that served as foci for rites performed by these early humans.[62] Wightman is even more enraptured by the Botswanan Tsodilo—sacred to modern hunter-gatherers—which primarily houses Upper Paleolithic paintings and artifacts, but has objects stretching back far earlier. Middle Paleolithic spearheads have been found in Tsodilo's Rhino Cave, many of which were distinctly painted and some of which had apparently travelled long distances with nomadic hunter-gatherers. Rhino Cave presents unusual rock formations that modern hunter-gatherers understand as spiritually significant, and Wightman hypothesises this sense may have been shared by their earliest forebears.[63] He is also curious about the emergence of cave art towards the very end of the Middle Paleolithic, where drawings and traces of red ochre finally emerge 50,000 years ago; this art, the first remnants of true human creativity, would usher in the Upper Paleolithic and the birth of complex religion.[64]

The emergence of the Upper Paleolithic c. 40,000–50,000 years ago was a time of explosive development. The Upper Paleolithic saw the worldwide emergence of H. s. sapiens as the sole species of humanity, displacing their Neanderthal contemporaries across Eurasia and travelling to previously human-uninhabited territories such as Australia. The complexity of stone tools grew, and the production of complex art, sculpture, and decoration began. Long-distance trade networks emerged to connect communities that had complex house-like habitations and food storage networks.[66]

True religion made its clear emergence during this period of flourishing. Rossano, following in the footsteps of other authors, ascribes this to shamanism. He draws a line between pre-Upper Paleolithic social bonding rituals and faith healing, where the latter is an evolution of the former. Gesturing at the universality of faith healing concepts in hunter-gatherer societies throughout recorded history, as well as their tendencies to involve the altered states of consciousness ascribed to shamanism and their placebo effect on psychologically inspired pain, he conjectures that these rituals were the first truly supernatural tendency to reveal itself to the human psyche.[11] Price refers to an extension of this as the "neuropsychological model", where shamanism is conceptualised as hard-wired in the human mind.[9] Though some authors are unsympathetic to the neuropsychological model,[67] Price finds a strong basis for some psychological underpinning to shamanism.[9]

Pottery of Middle Jōmon hunter-gatherers in Japan

Upper Paleolithic humans produced complex paintings, sculptures, and other artforms, much of which held apparent ritual significance.[68] Religious interpretations of such objects, especially "portable art" such as figurines, varies. Some writers understand virtually all such art as spiritual,[68] while others read only a minority as such, preferring more mundane functions for the majority.[69]

The study of religious art in the Upper Paleolithic focuses in particular on cave art—referred to alternatively by some writers (such as David S. Whitley) as "rock art", as not all of it was produced on cave walls rather than rock formations elsewhere.[70] Cave art is frequently conceptualised as a tool of shamanism.[9] This model, the "mind in the cave" conjecture, sees much cave art as produced in altered states of consciousness as a tool to connect the artist with the spirit realm.[67] Visionary cave art, as shamanic art is referred to, is characterised by unnatural imagery such as animal-human hybrids, and by recurring themes such as sex, death, flight, and physical transformation.[71]

Not all religious cave art depicts shamanic experience. Cave art is also connected, by analogy with modern hunter-gatherers, to initiation rituals; a painting that depicts an animal to most members of a tribe may have a deeper symbolic meaning to those involved in smaller secret societies.[72] Comparative evidence for this form of cave art is difficult to gather, as secret societies by definition do not share their nature with outsider anthropologists. In some cases, the lifestyles of modern hunter-gatherers have been rendered so peripheral as to lose that knowledge entirely. Nonetheless, these arts are still studied, and general ideas can still be concluded; concepts associated with secret society cave art include ancestor figures, animals as metaphors, and long-distance travel.[73][note 6]

Venus of Willendorf

Another art form of probable religious significance are the Venus figurines. These are hand-held statuettes of nude women found in Upper Paleolithic sites across Eurasia, speculated to hold significance to fertility rites.[75] Though separated by thousands of years and kilometres, Venus figurines across the Upper Paleolithic share consistent features. They focus on the midsections of their subjects; the faces are blank or abstract, and the hands and feet small. Despite the near-nonexistence of obesity amongst hunter-gatherers, many depict realistically rendered obese subjects. The figures are universally women, often nude, and frequently pregnant.[76][note 7]

Interpretations of Venus figurines range from self-portraits[78] to anti-climate-change charms[76] to matriarchal representations of a mother goddess.[79] Hayden argues the fertility charm interpretation is most parsimonious; Venus figurines are oft found alongside other apparent fertility objects, such as phallic representations, and that secular interpretations in particular are implausible for such widespread objects.[75][80] He similarly disagrees with the goddess symbolism, as seen in feminist anthropology,[81] on the basis that contemporary hunter-gatherers that venerate female fertility often lack actual matriarchal structures. Indeed, in more recent hunter-gatherer societies, secret societies venerating female fertility are occasionally restricted to men.[80] Contra the traditional fertility interpretation, Patricia C. Rice argues nonetheless that the Venuses are symbols of women throughout their lifetime, not just throughout reproduction, and that they represent a veneration of femaleness and femininity as a whole.[81]

Sculpture more broadly is a significant part of Upper Paleolithic art and often analysed for its spiritual implications. Upper Paleolithic sculpture is frequently seen through the lenses of sympathetic magic and ritual healing. Sculptures found in Siberia have been analysed through such an understanding by comparison to more recent Siberian hunter-gatherers, who made figurines while ill to represent and ward off those illnesses.[82] Venus figurines are not alone in terms of sexually explicit Paleolithic sculpture; around a hundred phallic representations are known, of which a significant proportion are circumcised, dating the origin of that practice to the era.[83] Sculptures of animals are also recorded, as are sculptures that appear to be part-human and part-animal. The latter especially are deemed spiritually significant and possibly shamanistic in intent, representing the transformation of their subjects in the spirit realm. Other interpretations of therianthropic sculpture include ancestor figures, totems, and gods. Though fully human sculptures in the Upper Paleolithic are generally female, those with mixed human and animal traits are near-universally male, across broad geographic and chronological ranges.[84]

Man buried at Sungir in Russia, covered in ivory jewellery

The Upper Paleolithic saw the advent of complex burials with lavish grave goods. Burials seem to have been relatively uncommon in these societies, perhaps reserved for people of high social or religious status.[85] Many of these burials seem to have been accompanied by large quantities of red ochre, but the matter of decomposition makes it difficult to discern whether such pigments were applied to flesh or bone. One remarkable case of a pigmented burial is that of Lake Mungo 3 in inland New South Wales, Australia; the ochre in which the body was found covered must have been transported for hundreds of kilometres, considering the distance between the burial and the nearest sources.[86]

One of the most elaborate Upper Paleolithic burials known is that of Sungir 1, a middle-aged man buried at the Russian Sungir site. In good physical health at the time of his death, Sungir 1 seems to have been killed by human weaponry, an incision on his remains matching that which would be produced by contemporary stone blades.[87] The body was doused in ochre, particularly around the head and neck, and adorned with ivory bead jewellery of around 3,000 beads. Twelve fox canine teeth surrounded his forehead, while twenty-five arm bands made of mammoth ivory were worn on his arms, and a single pendant made of stone laid on his chest.[88] Two children or young teenagers were additionally interred near him; their bodies were similarly decorated, with thousands of mammoth ivory beads, antlers, mammoth-shaped ivory carvings, and ochre-covered bones of other humans. The children had abnormal skeletons, with one having short bowed legs and the other an unusual facial structure.[86][88] Burials so elaborate clearly suggest some concept of an afterlife[86] and are similar to shaman burials in cultures described in written records.[89]

Burial is one of the major ways archaeologists understand past societies; in the words of Timothy Taylor, "there can be no clearer a priori demonstration of ritual in past societies than the archaeological uncovery of a formal human burial".[90] Upper Paleolithic burials do not appear to represent an ordinary cross-section of the population. Rather, their subjects are unusual and extravagant. Three-quarters of Upper Paleolithic burials were of men, a significant proportion young or disabled, and many buried in shared tombs. They are frequently posed in unusual positions and buried with rich grave goods. Taylor supposes many of these dead were human sacrifices, excluded from the ordinary means of body disposal (he presumes cannibalism) and warded by talismans.[91] Hayden rather speculates these were shamans or otherwise people whose religious prominence was in life, rather than death; he notes especially the frequency of physical disability, comparing it to the many shamans in recorded societies who were singled out for physical or psychological differences.[92][note 8]

Artist's impression of a Paleolithic healing ritual

Upper Paleolithic religions were presumably polytheist, venerating multiple deities, as this form of religion predates monotheism in recorded history.[95] As well as polytheism, religions of the ancient world—that is, those in recorded history closest chronologically to prehistoric religion—focused on orthopraxy, or a focus on correct practice and ritual, rather than orthodoxy, or a focus on correct faith and belief.[96] This is in contrast to many mainstream modern faiths, such as Christianity, that move the focus to orthodoxy.[3][97]

Shamanism may have been a major part of Upper Paleolithic religion. Shamanism is a broad term referring to a range of spiritual experiences, practised at many times in many places. Broadly speaking, it refers to spiritual practice involving altered states of consciousness, where practitioners render themselves in ecstatic or extreme psychological states in order to commune with spirits or deities.[98] The study of prehistoric shamanism is controversial—so controversial that people debating each side of the argument have dubbed their interlocutors "shamaniacs" and "shamanophobes".[9] The shamanistic interpretation of prehistoric religion is based in the "neuropsychological model", where shamanic experience is deemed an inherent function of the human brain. The symbols associated with shamanic art, such as animal-human hybrid figures, are suggested to originate from certain levels of trance.[99] The neuropsychological model has been criticised; opponents refer to the relative rarity of some forms of art associated with it, to tendencies in modern shamanic cultures they find incompatible with it, and to the work of pre-model archaeologists who cautioned against shamanic interpretations.[67]

Reconstructed cave bear

A popular myth about prehistoric religion is bear worship. Early scholars of prehistory, finding skeletons of the extinct cave bear around Paleolithic habitats, drew the conclusion humans of the era worshipped or otherwise venerated the bears. The concept was pioneered by excavations in the late 1910s in Switzerland, where apparent deposits of cave bear bones from which paleontologists could not draw obvious function were interpreted ritualistically. The idea was debunked as early as the 1970s as a simple artefact of sedimentary deposits changing over thousands of years.[25]

Another controversial hypothesis in Paleolithic faith is that it was oriented around goddess worship. Feminist analyses of prehistoricism interpret findings such as the Venus figurines as suggestive of fully realised goddesses. Marija Gimbutas argued that, as evinced by Eurasian Venus figurines, the predominant deity in Paleolithic and Neolithic religion throughout Europe was a goddess with later subservient male deities. She supposed this religion was wiped out by steppe invaders later in the Neolithic, prior to the beginning of the historical period.[100] The broad geographic range of Venuses has also seen their goddess interpretation in other regions; for instance, Bret Hinsch proposes a line of descent from Venuses to historical Chinese goddess worship.[101] The goddess hypothesis has been criticised for basis in a limited geographical range, and for not mapping onto similar observations seen in modern hunter-gatherers.[80]

Artist's impression of Mesolithic daily life

The Mesolithic was the transitional period between the Paleolithic and the Neolithic. In European archaeology, it traditionally refers to hunter-gatherers living after the end of the Pleistocene ice age.[102][note 9] Traditional archaeology takes a quotidian view of Mesolithic life, perceiving it as an era of cultural "impoverishment" without great cultural, artistic, or societal advances.[104] The lack of enthusiasm to study the Neolithic, and the lack of encouragement to do so by way of an absence of interesting archaeological findings, tied into one another; for instance, no Mesolithic cemeteries were unearthed until 1975.[102] Serious study of Mesolithic religion would not emerge until the 21st century, reinvigorating the field and reinterpreting prior assumptions of the Mesolithic as a bleak age.[104]

Much research on Mesolithic religion centres on Scandinavia, where evidence has emerged for a lifecycle based around rites of passage. From the finding of places that may have been dedicated birthing huts, it appears that Mesolithic people shared the assumption of some more modern hunter-gatherers that birth was a spiritually dangerous experience, and that heavily pregnant women needed to be secluded from society for the wellbeing of both parties. Nonetheless, the archaeological findings thought to have been birthing huts are disputed; it is possible their spiritual significance was broader, as a place where people who died young in general would be buried separate from the older dead. Later in life, Anders Fischer argues for the existence of a coming-of-age ritual amongst males—perhaps circumcision—connected to the use of flint blades.[105][106]

The bulk of modern understanding of Mesolithic religion comes from burial practices. Mesolithic Scandinavian burial rites are relatively well-reconstructed. The dead were buried with grave goods, notably including food; remnants of a fish stew have been unearthed from some graves. Burial practices themselves varied heavily. Bodies might be buried whole, or partially dismembered before burial; in some cases, animals were found in graves alongside humans, such as deer, pigs, and cats. Bodies were often covered in ochre. The context of Mesolithic burial is unclear; though some have argued these burials were reserved for prestigious individuals, others think just the opposite, noting that dedicated cemeteries in the era overrepresent the very young, the very old, and young women who may have died in childbirth. These dead are traditionally considered more liminal than the average person, and their burials separate from the community may have marked an intentional distancing.[107]

Callanish Stones of the Outer Hebrides, Scotland

Particularly in its heartland of the Near East, the Neolithic was an artistically and technologically rich era.[116] The rock art culturally associated with the Paleolithic did not disappear in the Neolithic, and in regions like south India it indeed flourished well into the era.[117] As well as continuing old forms, the Neolithic permitted the emergence of new kinds of art and design. As people moved from nomadic to sedentary lifestyles, they built houses that represented units united through physical structures, "subsum[ing] individuals into new corporate identities".[118] They also built megaliths, huge stone monuments with widely speculated theological and cultural implications.[119] Though a few hunter-gatherers, such as the Jōmon people of Japan, made pottery, pottery overall is another art form that emerged only in the Neolithic.[120]

Neolithic art with apparent ritual significance occurs throughout broad geographic ranges. The Liangzhu culture of the southern Chinese Yangtze Delta produced complex and abundant jade artifacts, some of vast size for grave goods—up to 3.5 kilograms (7.7 lb). Many of these jades featured engravings of unusual creatures in complex finery.[121] In Japan, the transition from Jōmon hunter-gatherers to Yayoi agriculturalists was marked by the production of Jōmon ceramic figurines apparently intended to ward away the Yayoi invaders; the Yayoi in turn carved intricate ornaments and built vast shrines.[122] In Macedonia, clay models of human and ram heads represent apparent household ritual and suggest that ordinary houses could be host to religious activity just as much as shrines or temples.[123]

Liangzhu jade cong under magnification

One of the most famous forms of Neolithic art and architecture were the megalithic stone circles of Western Europe, of which the most known is Stonehenge in South West England.[124] Stone circles are particularly associated with the British Isles, which hosts 1,303 extant circles, the plurality in Scotland.[125] Stone circles were not simple constructions but built through complex processes where the stones travelled long distances to their foundations; parts of Stonehenge were sourced 250 kilometres (160 mi) away in Wales. This technically complex construction is thought a herald of their supernatural power to the people who built them; the Preseli Hills, where Stonehenge was sourced, may have held deep significance to the megalith's builders.[126] Though the exact role of stone circles is unclear, they seem to have been, in part or whole, mausoleums. Many contain skeletons, particularly skulls. These seem to track to ancestor worship, and in particular the veneration of deceased members of elite spiritual social classes.[127] Stone circles also appear linked to cycles of the sun and moon. Stonehenge, for instance, is aligned such that on the solstice the sun rises and sets directly behind it.[128][129]

Two-headed 'Ain Ghazal statue

Neolithic statues are another area of interest. The 'Ain Ghazal statues unearthed in Jordan in the 1980s were an object of archaeological fascination.[130] These statues may have represented gods, legendary leaders, or other figures of great power. The two-headed statues are of especial interest; Gary O. Rollefson suggests they may have represented the fusion of two previously separate communities.[131] Elsewhere, statues have inspired varied theological interpretations. Maltese statues of women are, to some authors, suggestive of Neolithic goddess worship.[132] The idea Neolithic peoples had a female-centric religion worshipping goddesses holds some purview in popular culture, but is disputed amongst anthropologists.[133] In addition, though the goddess perspective of Neolithic religion oft assumes a female-centric religious practice, goddess-centric religions in comparable written societies may be dominated by men or women.[80][134]

Neolithic burial at the Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne w Łodzi

Burial appears more widespread in the Neolithic than the Upper Paleolithic. In a wide area from the Levant through central Europe, Neolithic burials are frequently found in the houses their denizens lived in; in particular, women and children dominate amongst those buried inside the home.[135] For children in particular, this may have represented the continued inclusion of these children in the family unit and a reincarnation cycle where those children were reborn as living members of the family.[136] As in the Paleolithic, some Neolithic burials may represent sacrificial victims; a group burial in modern-day Henan, containing four skeletons, may have been the death of an important figure heralded by three sacrifices.[137]

Neolithic burials display social inequality. At the Campo de Hockey necropolis in Spain, grave goods are unevenly distributed, and those found are often high-status ornamental objects such as jewellery.[138] This is coterminous with the hypothesised Neolithic emergence of the "big men", societal figures who proclaimed themselves religious and earthly leaders of inegalitarian societies.[139] In the most radical interpretations of Neolithic society, agriculture itself was a practice enforced upon people such that these rulers could acquire power over a more legible sedentary society.[140] Across the Near East, burial inequality is marked in different ways by different societies. In the Lower Galilee, some dead were buried close to their houses, but others were buried in dedicated funerary monuments. Across the Levant, skeletons with the deceased's features modelled in plaster can be found; these dead are thought to have had different status in their societies compared to those buried without such preservation. In the Judaean Desert, decedents were found preserved in a "gelatinous material" and surrounded by blades, beads, and masks.[141]

Sex and gender play roles in Neolithic burial. The Henan burial with potential sacrificial victims was composed of three men and one woman, and was read as a male shaman and his followers.[137][142] Other Neolithic Chinese burials of people interpreted as shamans have been of girls and women, such as two girls found in elaborate tombs at a site in Shanxi—the only non-adults in that burial ground. Sarah Milledge Nelson wrote that burials of subjects of apparent religious importance were often clouded by a lack of clarity as to the subject's sex because of the difficulty of determining sex with certainty from skeletal remains; the focal decedent in "the richest of all Mesoamerican burials" was sexed male, but with low confidence, and could theoretically have been a woman.[142] Neolithic burials broadly suggest gender inequality, with women having fewer grave goods and poorer diets as determined from their skeletons.[143][note 10]

Diorama of pottery-making in Neolithic China

Much of what is understood about Neolithic life comes from individual settlements with particularly preserved archaeological records, such as Çatalhöyük in southern Anatolia. Çatalhöyük was settled for a particularly long period of time, from around 7100 BC to 6000 BC, and provides a snapshot of a changing era. Residents of Çatalhöyük lived in shared houses with non-relatives, drawing their closest connections to "practical kin" rather than "official kin"; they seem to have been divided into two sub-communities going by different dental patterns in their skeletal remains, and were possibly patrilocal, with men staying in the community of their birth and women moving away. Nonetheless, Çatalhöyük is not in all ways representative of Neolithic communities; most such communities demonstrated poor nutrition and stunted growth, but the people of Çatalhöyük appeared to have adequate nutrition and indeed were able to support substantial population growth.[144]

From these preserved settlements, archaeologists try to extract religious practices in day-to-day Neolithic life. In 'Ain Ghazal, "mundane archaeological remains" coincide with striking findings such as caches of skulls, ceremonially buried statues, and hundreds of clay figurines. Many of these figurines seem to have been fertility and birth charms; birth during the Neolithic was "the most dangerous time of a woman's life", and spiritual protection against maternal death of the utmost importance. Other figurines seem to have been used as pseudo-sacrifices, ritually 'killed' and buried around human habitations.[145] Clay figurines broadly have been found in many Neolithic communities, and the individual communities that made them are extrapolated based on their features. Sites in North China, for instance, find a paucity of figurines of humans compared to those of animals, while their southern peers made more human figurines and particularly sexually explicit ones.[146] It is often unclear exactly what role such figurines held to the societies that made them; in addition to religious objects, they may have held more mundane functions such as toys, or even been both at once.[145][147]

The theological practices of people in early state societies with written records, somewhat later than the Neolithic, revolved around their daily lives. In particular, these societies focused on the growing and harvest of grains, and their religions followed; they worshipped gods of grains and had liturgical calendars revolving around the harvest.[112] Early agricultural societies also suffered high rates of zoonotic diseases, which they opposed with ritual practice, sympathetic magic, and prayers to healing deities.[148] Like other prehistoric-like societies described in written records, these experiences may be comparable to those of Neolithic agriculturalists.[3]

Possible representation of Neolithic religious practice

People in the Neolithic possibly engaged in ancestor worship. In inegalitarian Neolithic societies, it is possible two separate ancestor cults were practiced; one based around everyday worship of ancestors of individual families, and one based around ancestors of entire tribes, settlements, or cities, which the rulers of those people deemed themselves descended from. In bids to gain spiritual and earthly power, these rulers would posit themselves the heirs of gods.[149][150] In some regions, evidence also exists for solar worship and lunar worship; for instance, British and Irish stone circles are generally aligned with the movement of the sun, which plausibly played a role in their ritual significance.[151]

Neolithic religions were probably heavily ritual-based. These rituals would have signalled membership of and investment in the communities of those who performed them; these communities had labour- and health-expensive initiation rituals (consider the penile subincision performed by some Indigenous Australians), and practicing them marked people as members of a given community to both the community's allies and its enemies, even if they were later to try strike out on their own. This preserved the health of such communities; their members developed a deep identity as members, as people whose fortunes were tied to the broader community, and preferred to stay rather than split.[111]

Predynastic Egyptian statuette of the goddess Bat

One idea associated with Neolithic religion in popular culture is that of goddess worship. At Çatalhöyük, traditionally considered a centre of goddess worship on account of figurines found in the area, followers of new religious movements would take pilgrimages to the ruins as a holy site; the sociologist Ayfer Bartu Candan reported seeing a woman eat a handful of soil from the ruins in front of the mayor of the nearby town of Çumra.[152] The popularity of the "Great Goddess" concept of Neolithic religion can be traced to Gimbutas's concept of a peaceful matriarchal Neolithic, where a goddess was worshipped in a pan-European religion; its roots lie as early as the 1940s and 1950s, with seminal works by Robert Graves, Jacquetta Hawkes, and O. G. S. Crawford pioneering the concept. However, the idea was based on flawed methodologies and conflation of different movements across vast geographical areas, and is unlikely to be representative of actual Neolithic religious practice.[113]

In the specific case of Çatalhöyük, the primary objects of worship do not seem to have been human deities but animal ones, and the figurines traditionally interpreted as "goddesses" were possibly anthropomorphic bears, leopards, and cattle.[153] This seems to be reflective of a broad Neolithic tendency towards animal worship; the nearby site of Göbekli Tepe also bears significant evidence for ritual and religious significance of animals.[154] The Xinglongwa and Hongshan cultures of northeastern China carved elaborate jade sculptures of pigs and dragons speculated to have some religious role;[155] China was one of the first major sites of animal domestication,[156] and domestic animals seem to have played wide-ranging roles in Neolithic Chinese ritual practice, in particular as sacrificial goods for high-ranking spiritual leaders.[157]

Compared to the Paleolithic, shamanism seems to have grown peripheral over the course of the Neolithic. In many regions, priests of increasingly centralised faiths probably took over isolated shamanic functions, although shamanism and domestic cults of personal deities clearly continued.[158] Meanwhile, in the highly stratified societies of the Neolithic, elite secret societies flourished amongst the powerful.[159] In these unequal worlds, the spiritually powerful were able to manipulate faith to convince the general population of their social and spiritual subordinacy.[160]

Artist's impression of the Los Millares Copper Age settlement in Spain

The Chalcolithic, or Copper Age,[note 11] was the transitional period between the Neolithic and Bronze Age. In the Copper Age, an early understanding of metallurgy permitted the formation of simple copper tools to supplement stone, but without the deliberate production of its improved alloy bronze.[161] In the Levant, the Copper Age is typified by social, agricultural, and artistic innovation. Horticulture of plants such as olives became a major complement to grain agriculture, while the animal products available to farmers diversified. Settlements expanded and came to inhabit broader geographical ranges, while the art and textiles of the area made great strides in both ornamental capacities and symbolic representation. This contrasts to their peers in Egypt and Mesopotamia, who remained somewhat more inhibited throughout the era.[162] Further west and especially north, the concept of the Copper Age grows controversial; the "British Chalcolithic" is particularly unclear, with both support and opposition for the idea that copper metallurgy heralded a particular era in British prehistory.[163]

One of the major hypothesised cultures of the Copper Age were the Proto-Indo-Europeans, from whom all Indo-European language and mythology may have evolved. The Proto-Indo-Europeans are speculatively known through the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language, which bears traces of religion; *Dyḗws, the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European sky god, developed into the Greek Zeus and all he begat.[164] *Dyḗws was the presumed leader of a pantheon of deities including *Dhuĝhatḗr Diwós ("sky daughter"), *Hₐéusōs ("dawn goddess"), *Neptonos ("water grandson"), and *Perkʷunos ("thunder god"). There was also *Manu-, humanity's ancestor, who became Mannus of Germanic paganism and Manu of early Hinduism.[165] There has been some reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European afterlife, "a land of green pastures, where age and sickness are unknown", accessible only via dangerous travels through a watery, hound-guarded maelstrom.[166]

Proto-Indo-European religion is understood through the reconstruction of shared elements of ancient faith over the regions the Proto-Indo-Europeans influenced. For instance, shared portions of the Odyssey and the Mahābhārata permit reconstruction of a "proto-epic" from which both tales descend.[167] From this scholars infer "a rich mythology of which only distant echoes have come to us"[166] with substantial gaps in the pantheon, particularly with more speculative deities such as a possible war god.[165] Indo-Europeanists J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams are skeptical about the Proto-Indo-European war god,[165] though Hayden (writing from a more generalist perspective) supposes its existence, possibly represented as a bull.[168] Hayden also argues for entheogenic rites amongst the Proto-Indo-Europeans, particularly a psychoactive "drink of immortality" backformed from the Indo-Iranian soma and madhu[note 12] and the Greek ambrosia, which was imbibed by Proto-Indo-European priests.[170]

Three modern-day druidesses at Stonehenge on the summer solstice

New religious movements such as neopaganism take theological, spiritual, and cultural positions unlike those of the mainstream religions which dominate world discourse. One major stream of neopaganism is reconstructionism, where practitioners attempt to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of long-lost faiths. This is particularly associated with the prehistoric and protohistoric cultures of the European Bronze and Iron Ages.[206] Major groups include Heathenry, which focuses on the reconstruction of Germanic and particularly Norse faiths; Celtic neopaganism, focusing on the reconstruction of the pre-Christian religions of the Celtic people; and neo-Druidism, focusing on the Druids popularly associated with protohistoric Britain.[207] An array of minor prehistoric reconstructionist movements also exist, such as Proto-Indo-European reconstructionism.[208] Other forms of reconstructionism exist working from a more New Age perspective,[note 15] such as neo-shamanism, the Western reconstruction of shamanic practice.[209]

Pagan positions on prehistoric religion proper are distinct from those written by mainstream authors. Scholar-practitioner Michael F. Strmiska, writing about the Christianisation of protohistoric societies in the first millennium AD, criticises the common perspective of the "rise of Christianity"; he reinterprets it as a bloody and ruthless war where Christian invaders conquered pagan practitioners and suppressed their religious practices.[210] Robert J. Wallis, neo-shaman and professor of visual culture at Richmond University, analyses the academic study of such movements. He argues that the anthropological practice of trying to observe as an outsider is impossible; "sitting and taking notes" is not an approved role in neo-shamanic practice, which requires either being at the centre of the practice or being absent from it entirely. He criticises the neglect of shamanism, reconstructed or otherwise, in archaeology as a consequence of a lack of interest in the form of introspective, theoretical work such study revolves around. Wallis also criticises mainstream archaeological practice as potentially offensive to reconstructionist groups, such as the excavation of bones buried in Stonehenge.[211]

Reconstructionist's impression of a pagan goddess

The degree to which reconstructionism focuses on European "ancestral" religions is a matter of some controversy. The pagan author Marisol Charbonneau argues European pagan reconstructionism "carries notions of implicit ethnic and cultural allegiance" regardless of the practitioner's thoughts and intent; she in part ascribes the lack of communication between mostly-white neopagan practitioners and mostly-nonwhite followers of recent immigrant spiritual practices to this implication.[206] Not all prehistoric reconstructionism is centred on European tradition; for instance, neo-shamanism is generally interpreted as having a specifically non-Western background.[212] Heathenry poses particular problems for this issue. One of the fastest-growing religious movements in Northern Europe and elsewhere, practitioners fear it being co-opted by white supremacist movements. During the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017, a number of far-right protestors used Heathen symbolism alongside imagery such as Nazi and Confederate flags. This was condemned by Heathen leaders across the globe, who were dismayed by the association of their religion with these movements in the public eye.[213]

Wallis sees the study of reconstructionism from the opposite angle—instead of scholar-practitioners defending their religion from bad-faith outside attacks, he focuses on the phenomenon of outsiders fearing "going native", embedding themselves within a marginalised spiritual framework and receiving the ridicule of their academic peers. As a scholar-practitioner himself, Wallis dismisses this concern. Rather, his concern is a gap between scholars and practitioners limiting the understanding of prehistoric religion by placing the two at odds. He particularly concerns himself with archaeology at Stonehenge, today sacred to neo-Druids; he refers to modern practitioners' distress at Stonehenge excavations "digging the heart out of Druidic culture and belief", "stealing" a land from its ancient spiritual guardians. While Wallis does not concur with the anti-archaeological perspective of some Druids, he recognises their concerns—and the problems these concerns pose for the study of prehistoric religion. He particularly compares these concerns to those of indigenous spiritual practitioners, who are now more archaeologically respected than they were in the past, when digging up their sacred sites was an easily accepted sacrifice.[211]

Illustration of prehistoric toolmaking in The Cave Boy of the Age of Stone

Prehistoric fiction emerged as a genre in the 19th century.[214] A subgenre of speculative fiction, Nicholas Ruddick compares the genre to science fiction proper, noting that—although the genre lacks the future orientation most readers think synonymous with science fiction—it is more closely related to the genre than anything else, sharing a fundamental orientation of projecting human experience into eras deep into the future or past. Ruddick notes their overlap particularly in the subset of prehistoric fiction involving time travel, where modern-day characters are exposed to prehistoric society or vice versa.[215] Where early writers interpreted prehistoric peoples as primitive "cavemen" who could barely speak, let alone comprehend complex abstract ideas such as religion,[216] later work permits this abstraction and delves into the depths of religion's origin.[217]

Some prehistoric fiction juxtaposes the religions of different hominins. In Before Adam by Jack London, the Cave People, who the book is told from the perspective of, have "no germs of religion, no conceptions of an unseen world", while the more advanced Fire People who overtake them can conceptualise—and fear—the future.[218] In Jean M. Auel's influential Earth's Children series, a recurring theme is Neanderthal and H. s. sapiens interaction, for the better and the worse. Neanderthal and H. s. sapiens religion are juxtaposed throughout the books. Neanderthal religion revolves almost entirely around totemism, and a recurring element in The Clan of the Cave Bear is the female protagonist's Cave Lion totem, an unusually strong totem for a woman in a misogynistic and strictly gendered society. H. s. sapiens, on the other hand, have a near-monotheist veneration of a singular Earth Goddess, treated as the same figure for groups with vast geographic and linguistic barriers between them. Her worshippers make figurines of her, called donii, which are clearly intended to be the Venus figurines of paleontologist fascination.[219] Auel's interpretation of Paleolithic religion so shapes the popular image as to be many general readers' entire impression, although her Neanderthal religion in particular is far more complex than many scholars ascribe.[13][219]

Fiction addressing prehistoric religion does not need to be set in prehistory proper. Prehistoric artifacts, such as stone circles, are commonly used to add an ancient or occult sensibility to a fictional practice's rituals.[220] In particular, such artifacts may be used to lend a "questionable antiquity" to new religious movements such as Wicca.[221] They may also connect these circles to modern ethnic groups far from their provenance, such as Roma people.[222] This contrasts the treatments of such monuments in fiction actually set in prehistory, where they are considered as self-contained and less often linked directly to modern practice.[223] In the furthest examples of taking prehistory out of the past, some fiction engages with prehistory from a future-oriented science fiction perspective. The Neanderthal Parallax, a trilogy by Robert J. Sawyer, encounters a highly technologically advanced world where Neanderthals are the dominant human species. The Neanderthals of this world have no "God organ" and no concept of religion, although they are advanced far beyond modern technology in other aspects.[224]

Analysis of prehistoric religion in fiction often restricts its study to the Paleolithic, neglecting later treatments of the phenomenon.[225] The chronological focus of prehistoric fiction varies by subgenre; for instance, children's fiction particularly often deals with the Neolithic, in particular Neolithic innovations such as stone circles.[223] Prehistoric fiction often treats religion as a reaction and monotheism specifically as an invention, a corruption of prior, "realer" prehistoric polytheist religion.[226][227] Some prehistoric fiction is written from actively skeptical positions, painting ancient shamans as frauds,[228] while others take a sympathetic position, even agreeing with the foundations of their reconstructed faith.[219]