Beginning of Religion

Author(s): Ina Wunn

Source: Numen, Vol. 47, No. 4 (2000), pp. 417-452
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270307
Accessed: 01-12-2015 21:35 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BEGINNING OF RELIGION

INA WUNN

Summary
In thelasttwodecades,thestudy ofPalaeolithic
religion hascometobe ofin-
creasingconcerntobothscholars ofthehistoryofreligion
andarchaeologists. Inthis
papertheappropriatenessofsomerecent viewsintheinterpretation ofthearchaeo-
is re-evaluated.
logicalfindings Theconclusion ofthisstudy is thatneither
evidence
ofearlyritual norofbelief
practises inanafterlife
canbeendorsed. Allrelevantcon-
ceptionsofthatkindareeitherproductsofa certainmental climate atthetimeofthe
discoveryofthefossils,
orofideologies.
Theresultsofpalaeanthropological research
provethatnoneoftheearlyrepresentatives ofthegenusHomowascapableofde-
velopinga complicatedsymbol system.Onlyinthemiddle PalaeolithicperiodHomo
haddeveloped
neanderthalensis advancedintellectual Butneither
abilities. inconnec-
tionwithhishunting customs norwithhisdomestic activitiescananytracesofcult
practicebe found.Onlytherareburialscanbe interpretedas a first
signofreligious
Butthere
feelings. arenofuneral orfuneral
rituals Allassumptions
gifts. thatNean-
derthalmanalready believedinanafterlife,
aremerespeculation. Theoriesofrituals
duringthelowerandmiddle belongtotherealm
Palaeolithic oflegend.

The searchfortheoriginof religionwas one of themaintopics

of discussionduringthe firsthalfof the twentieth century. It was
JohannesMaringerwho interpreted the archaeologicalfindingsof
stone-ageculturesas a possibleindicationof earlybeliefin supreme
beings.'Whenever the of
question prehistoric religionarisesinrecent
authorsstillreferto Johannes
publications, Maringeror one of his
toemphasisetheirparticular
contemporaries2 pointofview.3
When JohannesMaringerinitiallyset out to portraythe belief
systemof prehistoricman,he was well awarethatknowledgeabout

1Maringer1956.
2 James1957,Narr1966:298-320.
3 See forexampleVerkamp1995:5, andDickson1990.

BrillNV,Leiden(2000)
? Koninklijke NUMEN,Vol.47

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
418 Ina Wunn

earlyhominidswas hardlysufficient to attempt a reconstructionof

theirreligion.4Sincethen,however, a vastamountofliterature dealing
withearlyreligionor the originof religionhas been published.
WhereasJohannesMaringercarefullyinterpreted the findingsand
criticisedthe documentation of the excavations,his successorsare
convincedthatreligioncame intobeing withthe birthof the first
hominidsseveralmillionyearsago. Theirtheoriesare based upon
rarearchaeological material, interpreted withtheaid of ethnographic
analogues. The use of ethnographic analoguesin prehistoricresearch
is, however,a source of heateddebate. The archaeologist Andr6
Leroi-Gourhan emphasisesthedifficulties encountered in tracing
the
religion of a society of which only material remnants remain. It
is even more complicatedto gain insightinto the mentality of a
people whose culture is hardlydocumented and onlyscarcelyknown.5
On theotherhand,scholarssuch as PeterUcko and Lewis Binford
extensively discussthevalueofethnographic analoguestoexplainthe
behaviourof earlyhunter-gatherer communities.6 They have failed,
to
however, develop a set ofmutually agreed-upon researchguidelines
and definitions thatwill clarifyanalyticapproachesto thesubject.7
Therefore scholarscontinueto use ethnographic analogiesto explain
possible belief of
systems early man without the necessarycritical
distance.As a result,the presumedreligionin Palaeolithictimes
partlyresembles thementality ofarcticpeoples,andpartlyresembles
thebeliefof Australianaborigines, accordingto theexperienceand
researchinterests of thescholar.8The sparsearchaeologicalmaterial
itselfhardlyallowspreciseinterpretation. Sometimes thereareseveral
to
possible ways explain the remains, sometimes nothingcan be
said about the contextof the archaeologicalfindings.Despitethe

4 See Maringer1956: 298.

5 Leroi-Gourhan1981.
6Binford1984,Ucko 1977.
7Fora recentlydevelopedguideline,see Wunn2000 (inpress).
8MirceaEliade,forexample,is convinced thatarcticshamanism wasas muchpart
ofthePalaeolithic
beliefsystemas theritesofpygmies;see Eliade 1978: 19.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofReligion
Beginning 419

controversialdiscussionsamongarchaeologists,it seems to be an
acceptedfactin thefieldofHistoryofReligionthatPalaeolithicman
had a specificreligion.9They performedritualsrelatedto hunting
and believedin a masterof animals.They buriedthe dead and
acknowledgeda life afterdeath.On the otherhand,due to traces
of cannibalism,theyare assumedto have been wild and primitive.
Modemarchaeologists are morecautiousin
andpalaeanthropologists
Theydescribeonlyfossilsand excavationsand
theirinterpretations.
hardly ever ventureto commenton thementality of theirobjectof
research.10

Homorudolfensis
1. ReligionofAustralopithecus, andHomo
habilis
Whilescholarssuchas loan Coulianoor MarijaGimbutasassume
thatthereis no actualproofofreligiousactivity before60 000 B.C.,11
MirceaEliade is convincedthateventhefirst hominidshad a certain
awareness.
spiritual For him it is that
essential theupright postureof
Australopithecus was thedecisivestepbeyondthestatusof merepri-
mates.Therefore thisearlygenusofhominids is believedtohavehada
senseofconsciousness whichdiffers onlyslightlyfromthatofmodem
humans.ForMirceaEliadeitis proventhatbothAustralopithecus and
speciesofthegenusHomoweresuccessfulhunters.
thefirst He takes
forgranted thattheseearlyhominids werealreadyfamiliar withrituals
thataretypicalofrecenthunter-gatherer communities.12
The commonlyacceptedstarting pointforprehistorical religionis
believedto havebeen about6 millionyearsago, whenthecommon
ancestorof modemapes and humanbeingslivedsomewherein the
Africanbush.The fossilremnants of thiscommonancestor,a true
missing link in theevolution of man,has notbeen discovereduntil

9 See, forexample,Gimbutas1987: 505-515,Heyden1987: 127-133,Ripinski-

Naxon1995:43-54 andOtte1995:55-75.
10HenkeandRothe1994.
1 See Eliade andCouliano1991:27, andGimbutas1996:3f.
12Eliade 1978: 15.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
420 Ina Wunn

recently.However,the findingof a new Africanhominidspecies

in 1994, consideredto be at least 4.4 millionyearsold, is closest
to approaching therootsof thehumanphylogenetic tree.This new
specieswas firstidentifiedas Australopithecus ramidus, butaccording
to the latestanatomicalstudiesit seems to belong to a different
genus,Ardipithecus.13 Ardipithecus ramidusis probablytheancestor
oftheso-calledaustralopithecines, wholivedin woodedenvironments
of easternand southern Africa.14 Duringthefollowingtwo million
years, the australopithecines developedinto severalspecies,which
disappearedin partaftera comparatively shortperiod.Only one
species,most the
probably Australopithecus afarensis,developedinto
thefirstmemberof theHomo lineage.Even thefirst membersof the
earlygenus Homo show considerable variability size and shape,so
in
thattheynow have been classifiedas threedifferent species,Homo
habilis,whois at thebeginning of thephylogenetic treeof thegenus
Homo,H. rudolfensis, and finallyH. ergaster,the ancestorof the
modemhuman.15
As a resultof thelatestresearchin palaeoanthropology (morphol-
ogy and anatomy)it is impossibleto maintainthatAustralopithecus
and theearlyrepresentatives of thespeciesHomo pursuedthenutri-
tionstrategy of hunters.WhenRaymondDartpublishedhis biologi-
cal analysisof a childlikeskullfoundin thearea of Taungin 1925,
he discovered certainanatomical featureswhichmadeitnecessary for
himtoclassifytheunknown species as a new biologicaltaxon.16 Aus-
tralopithecusafricanusDART 1925 held,in terms,
biological an inter-
mediatepositionbetweenthewell-known apes and thegenusHomo.
These anatomicalfeatures of theskull,and therefore thebrain,are,
however, notlinkedto intellectual abilities,meaningthatthebipedal-
ism of theyoungerAustralopithecus could lead to a changeof con-

13HenkeandRothe1999: 143ff.
14The treeofAustalopithecus
and Ardipithecus
is stilla maintopic
phylogenetic
ofdiscussionamongscientists. See HenkeandRothe1999: 143ff.
15Straitetal. 1997: 17ff.;HenkeandRothe1999: 177.
16See HenkeandRothe1994:248.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofReligion
Beginning 421

sciousness.Firstassumptions, thatAustralopithecus knewhowto use

fire,werebased on a falseinterpretation of thefacts.The blackish
patches,which were originallyinterpreted as tracesof fire,wereat-
tributableto manganicdiscoloration. The hypothesis thattheseearly
hominids mainlyfed on meat,had to be revised. The fossilaccumula-
tionsof bonesfoundin certainplaces of theSouthAfricansavannah
werecausedbylionsandhyenas.Froma palaeanthropological pointof
viewitis impossiblethatthedifferent speciesofAustralopithecus with
theirlow brainvolumeof 310 ccm up to 530 ccm wereable to think
in abstractterms.It is truethatearlyhominidspursuedthestrategy
of progressivebraindevelopment and therefore managedto occupy
a new ecologicalnicheas carrion-eaters. This strategy provedto be
quitesuccessfulduringthefirst stepsofthe evolution of man,butdoes
notmeanthatAustralopithecus, Homorudolfensis, Homoergasterand
Homohabilishadnecessarily better intellectual thanmodem
facilities
daychimpanzees.17 From a different point of view, the archaeologist
StephenMithencomestothesameconclusion:He pleadsfora certain
modelofthemind'sdevelopment duringevolution, deducedfromevo-
lutionaryanddevelopmental psychology.18 Hominidsas wellas young
childrenseemtohaveintuitive knowledge fourfundamental
in behav-
iouraldomains.Content-rich mentalmodulesprovideyoungchildren,
andprobably ourancestors,withcertain abilities, suchas socialintelli-
gence,19intuitive
biologicalknowledge,20 technical and
intelligence,21
linguistic
intelligence.Those domains of the mind determine theway
a youngchildstartslearningaboutlanguage,otherminds,and their
naturalandphysicalsurroundings. Duringindividual development and
evolutionthemultiple, specialisedintelligences startworking together,
so thatknowledgeand ideas can flowbetweentheformer modules.22

17Grzimek1972:517, andGoodall1990.
8 Mithen1996:42ff.
19Whiten1991.
20Atran1990.
21Spelke1991: 133-168.
22Mithen1996:64.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
422 Ina Wunn

Buttheancestor ofAustralopithecus andAustralopithecus himself still

had a primitivemindwithonlypowerfulgeneralintelligence, a spe-
cialiseddomainof socialintelligence and severalminormentalmod-
ulescomparable tothemindofrecentapes andmonkeys.23 Thismeans
thatAustralopithecus was absolutely notcapableofperforming ritesor
developing anyreligiousideas.
A further crucialstep in the directionof hominisation was the
preparationanduse oftoolsbytheearliestrepresentatives ofthegenus
Homo,as MirceaEliade emphasises.He is convincedthatthevery
slow advancement of the firstlithicculturesis not connectedto a
low intelligence.24Eliade takesforgrantedthatearlyhumansof the
lowerPalaeolithicmade theirlivingmainlyby hunting. As a result
thoseearlyhunters shouldhavedevelopeda reference systembetween
hunter andkilledanimal,whichfirst ledtoa kindofmythical solidarity
betweenhunter andgameandwas theoriginofreligiosity.25
The hypothesis thatearlyhominids alreadyweresuccessful hunters
is attributable
to RaymondDart,who suddenlyfoundhimselfat the
centreof generalcriticalinterest due to his excitingdiscoveryof a
new species.26Since humans,accordingto RaymondDart,are the
onlymeat-eating primates, his biologicalconclusionsregarding the
classification
of theskullof Taungwouldbe supported by evidence
of similarbehaviourof thisearlyhominidspecies.27Therefore, he
lookedspecifically forfossilbone beds, whichhe interpreted to be
theremnants of thepreyofAustralopithecus. In thiscontexthe also
discovereddensitiesclose to thebone beds,whichhe thought to be
tracesof fire.Today it is knownthatthosedense areas are merely
manganesediscolorations. Dart's thesisseemedto be confirmed by

23Ibid.94.
24Eliade 1978: 16.
25Eliade 1978: 16, 17.
26Manyarguments againstDart'sclassification
ofthe"Babyof Taung"aredue to
scepticismandenvy.HenkeandRothe1994: 248.
27Also thehypothesis of JosephCampbellis based on Dart.See Campbell1987:
359f.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beginning
ofReligion 423

Louis Leakey in the TanzanianOlduvai Gorge,wherethe famous

anthropologist foundremnantsof an early hominid,classifiedas
Zinjanthropus, alongwithprimitive stonetools.Although therewere
substantial
doubtsaboutDart'sthesis howcoulda delicatecreature
-

weighingapproximately 45 kg be able to kill the largeungulates

of theAfricansavannah?- Dart's pointof view becamegenerally
popularandacceptedinthesixties.28 Onlyintensive researchregarding
the behaviourof carnivoresand taphonomicand sedimentological
processesmade it clearthatthefossilbone beds weretheresultsof
differentforcesin an ecologicalsystemseenas a whole.29The layers
ofthefindings werebyno meanstheresultoftheactivities ofonlyone
speciesand certainly notof theweak and delicateAustralopithecus.
As a resultof theseinvestigations it is certainthatthefirsthumans,
including Homo habilis,fedon fruit,vegetablesandcarrionandwere
not at all able to hunt.30On the contrary, the so-called"Baby of
Taung" had itselfbecome the prey of a predatory animal.The first
stonetools,theso-calledchoppers,did notserveto killtheprey,but
to cracknut-shells and splitopen thebones of ungulateskilledby
lions or hyenas,in orderto obtainthe preciousmarrow.That was
thesinglepartofthepreythatwas leftforAustralopithecus orHomo
habilis/rudolfensis/ergaster.31
NeitherAustralopithecus norHomohabilisnorHomoergasterfits
intothecategory of a hunter.
The mythical betweenhunter
solidarity
and victim,claimedby MirceaEliade forthehumansof thelower
Palaeolithic,resultsfromfalseassumptions. Eliade assumesthatin-
telligence,imagination, and the activityof the subconsciousof the
early hominids differedonlyslightly fromtheintellectual abilitiesof
themodemHomosapiens.The resultsofmodempalaeoanthropology

28Even in the late seventiesand

earlyeightiesthe archaeologistGlynnIsaac
advanceda hypothesisconcerninghuman evolution
basedontheassumption thatearly
Homoconsumeda largequantity ofmeat(Isaac 1978).
29See Binford1984:28-57,andHenkeandRothe1994:355f.
30Binford1984:57, andSchrenk1997:49 and72.
31HenkeandRothe1999: 187.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
424 Ina Wunn

andevolutionary psychology indicatethattheintellectualcapabilityof

thoseearlyformsof hominidsis in no waycomparableto thatofre-
centHomo sapiens.As stonetoolsand remainsof mealsprove,the
first memberofthegenusHomohad developedonlya verysmalldo-
mainfortechnicalintelligence and severaltinymentalmodulesfor
interaction withthenaturalworld,buthadnotyetfullnaturalhistory
intelligence.32The discretedomainof social intelligence, whichthe
ancestorofearlyhominids hadalreadyacquired,developedduringthe
first stepsof human evolutionintoa morepowerful andcomplexpart
of themind.Probablyevena primitive kindoflinguistic intelligence
had started to develop.As StevenMithenemphasises, theintellectual
capabilityoftheHomo habilisgroupwas alreadyhigherthanthatof
Australopithecus, butnevertheless "littlemorethanan elaboratever-
sionofthemindof thecommonancestor."33 Therefore Australopithe-
cus, Homo rudolfensisand Homo habilis/ergaster at theorigin
were
of a development thatencouraged thegrowth ofhominidsby forcing
themtooccupythenicheofmeat-eaters. Theywerecompetitively suc-
cessfulbecausetheydevelopedtheintellectual facilities
allowingthem
touse stonetoolstoservetheirneeds,butnottothinkinabstract terms.
MirceaEliade also assumesthatearlyhominidswereable to hunt
successfully. Thereis no archaeologicalevidenceforthisassumption.
It is certainthatbothAustralopithecus and earlyHomo occupiedthe
nicheof carrion-eaters. Eliade himselfwas absolutelyconvincedthat
eventhefirstof thehominidshad a kindof religionthatresembled
in one way or the otherthereligionof recenthunter-gatherer com-
munities.He called uponhis criticsto presentevidenceon thenon-
religiosityofearlyhominids.34 Thepalaeoanthropology andevolution-
arypsychology has sinceprovidedthisevidence.

32Mithen1996: 104ff.
33Ibid. 112.
34Eliade 1978: 17.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beginning
ofReligion 425

2. Religiosity
ofHomoerectusand his Contemporaries
Homo erectusand his immediatedescendantswere the firstho-
minidswho succeededin leavingtheAfricancontinent and to settle
almosteverywhere in theOld World.35 One oftheoldestknownEuro-
peanfossilesis a jaw ofthegenusHomo,discoveredamongthepeb-
bleson thebanksoftheNeckarriverat thevillageofMauernearHei-
delberg.Thisjaw of Homoerectusheidelbergensis is approximately
650 000 to 600 000 yearsold.36Geologicallythefindbelongsto the
periodof Cromer. Thisis a periodbetweentwolong-lasting ice-ages,
theGiinz-andtheMindel-periods, whena relativelywarmclimateen-
abledhumansto occupynewhabitats.Primitive stonetoolsfromthe
Neuwieder Beckenandthelatestexcavations atBurgosinSpainprove
thattheEuropeancontinent wasinhabited atleast800000 yearsago,or
evenearlier.Information on thelifestyleofHomoerectuscouldonly
be gainedfromexcavations atBilzingsleben, wherean earlysettlement
ofHomoerectuscouldbe found.GeologicallyBilzingsleben belongs
totheHolsteinperiod.Thismeansthatthefindings atthisplacearenot
only200 000 yearsyounger thanthejaw fromMauer,butcompletely
independent ofthe firstappearance ofa specimenofHomoerectusas a
resultofan entireice-age.Thisperiodled toa characteristicchangeof
floraandfauna,whichformed thelandscapeandecosystem duringthe

35The oldesthumanfossilofEuropewas detectedin 1994 in theGranDolina of

Atapuerca inSpain.Theseearlyhumansareabout780 000 yearsold.Thesehominids,
namedHomo antecessor,seemto differ fromthewell known(Asian)
significantly
Homoerectusand theAfricanHomoergaster,whichmeansthattheearlyhominids
of Africa,Asia and Europebelongto different species.Severalscientists
emphasise
thefollowing phylogenetic tree:
Homo antecessordevelopedfromtheAfricanHomo
ergasterand succeededto settlein Europe.Here he becametheancestorof Homo
heidelbergensis, who himselfdevelopedintotheEuropeanHomo neanderthalensis.
See HenkeandRothe1999:204-217.
36The remnants of fourindividuals
of thespeciesHomo antecessor,whichwere
detectedat theexcavationsite"La GranDolina" nearBurgos,belongto theeldest
members of thegenusHomo in Europe.An isolatedskull,foundnearIsneria,Italy,
is nearlyas old. EarlytoolsfromFrancehavean age ofbetweenone millionandtwo
millionyearsandprovethatEuropewas inhabited veryearly.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
426 Ina Wunn

firstconquestofEuropeby a hominid.The distancein timebetween

thefindings ofMauerandBilzingsleben is reflected
inthedevelopment
of theculture.WhilethetoolsofHomoerectusheidelbergensis were
stillsimplehandaxes,theHomo erectusbilzingslebensis was already
of
capable manufacturing developedweapons and tools.Theoretically,
thismadehimcapableofhunting forgame.
Anatomically H. erectusbilzingslebensiswas moredevelopedthan
hispredecessor. ThereforethewayoflifeofH. erectusheidelbergensis
musthavebeen evensimplerand less advanced.37 The excavationof
thesettlement at Bilzingslebenprovidesinsightintotheway of life
of theyoungerHomo erectus.The archaeologicalfindings of early
manprovethefollowing facts:AtBilzingsleben a smallgroupofearly
humanscampedat theshoreof a smalllake in notmorethantwoor
threetents.Here theyseemedto have occasionallyhunteda beaver
or othersmall animals.Theirstonetools were suitableforhunting
smallerprey,whereasno weaponwas foundwhichwouldhavebeen
effectiveenoughto killan elephantor a bison.The distribution ofthe
elementsofthefaunasupports thispointof view.38Additionally they
may have fed on the corpses of dead animals which were probably
foundfrequently alongtheshoreofthelake.Surelyelephantandrhino
bones,whichwerefoundat theworkingsitesand servedas support
or workmaterial,originated fromdead animalsthatwerenotkilled
by H. erectusbilzingslebensis.One couldconcludethattheyalso ate
fish,eggs and vegetables,and thatthefoodwas mostlikelycooked.
The peopleof Bilzingsleben werealreadyawareof a certaincode of
social behaviourand it is also clearthattherewas some degreeof
emotional exchangebetweencertainmembers ofthegroup.Thereare
no indications of anyreligiousactivities. The comparisonof Homo
erectusbilzingslebensis withrecenthunter-gatherer communities is
not convincingdue to the followingfacts:The popularbeliefthat
H. erectussuccessfully huntedlargergame,hasbeendisproved. Many
of the findingsof fossilbone beds whichwere said to be due to

37See HenkeandRothe1994:407f.
38Mania andWeber1986:20ff.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofReligion
Beginning 427

the huntingactivitiesof the H. erectusare in the near vicinityof

wateringplaces. Here theungulatesfrequently becamethe preyof
predatory animals. Analysis of the individual age of the bones of
fossilmammalsatBilzingsleben andotherPalaeolithicsettlements led
to theconclusionthatmanyof thoseanimalsdied naturally.39 The
firstevidencethatat leasttheyoungerHomo erectuswas capableof
hunting largerpreycamefromSchtiningen nearHelmstedt, Germany,
wherea woodenspearabout1.5 meterslongwas foundin a hunting
campinhabited about400 000 yearsago.40Homoerectushad a brain
volumewhichwas stillquitesmallcomparedto thebrainof recent
Homo sapiens. Only the youngerH. erectusis supposedto have
been capableof verbalcommunication, as anatomicalinvestigations
have proven.Thoughthereis no directrelationship betweenbrain
volumeand intelligence, behaviouror certainabilities,scholarsare
convinced thatH. erectuswas quiteprimitive comparedtoH. sapiens,
as thearchaeologicalfindings relatedto his culturehave revealed.41
The resultsof evolutionary psychology seem to provethefollowing
facts:Obviouslytechnicalskillsincreaseddramatically overthoseof
H. habilis.Naturalhistoryintelligence and social intelligencewere
also well developed.On the otherhandthe technicalconservatism
ofHomoerectusovera periodof aboutone millionyearsis striking.
The onlyexplanation forthiscontradictoryevidenceis to assumethat
thewell developedmultipleintelligences theH. erectuswerestill
of
committed tospecificdomainsofbehaviour, withverylittleinteraction
betweenthem.42 Thinking and communication inabstract
terms,which
areessentialforreligiousawareness, probablydevelopedquitelate.
Thoughexcavationslikethecampof Bilzingsleben, Markleeberg,
KiirlichorBad Cannstadt andtheresultsofarchaeological psychology
do notsupportthehypothesis thatearlymanperformed anyreligious
rites,and thoughthediscussionof palaeanthropological factsprove

39HenkeandRothe1994:428.
40Thieme1997:807-810.
41See HenkeandRothe1994:424.
42Mithen1996: 115ff.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
428 Ina Wunn

thatH. erectuswas notat all capableof performing complicated rit-

uals,it is stilltheopinionamongscholarsof theHistoryof Religion
andseveralarchaeologists thatritualcannibalism was commonamong
earlyhumanpopulations. ThusAlfredRustwrites:"Uniquefindsfrom
Asia provethatcannibalism was exercisedin thewholeworld."43 Al-
fredRustrefersto findsofHomoerectusin thecavesofZhoukoudian
whichrevealmanysimilarities to Bilzingsleben.44WhileAlfredRust
is convincedthatthepresenceof several"smashed"humanskullsis
a clearsignof ritualcannibalism, Johannes Maringerpresumesthat
skullsandlowerjaws aretheremnants ofthedeceasedwhichhadbeen
keptandworshipped bytheirfamily. Similarcustomsarestillevident
among members of primitivecultures in AfricaorAsia.45Thepalaean-
thropologists Winfried Henkeand Hartmut Rotheexpressstrongand
justifieddoubt about thisassertion. The analysisof severalcraniums
of earlymangave evidencethatthedestruction of theskullswas due
to theactivities of ancienthyenaandnormaltaphonomic processes.46
The archaeologist Andr6Leroi-Gourhan had alreadynotedin thesix-
ties:"Theconditions oftheformer excavations ofChouKouTienmake
itdifficultto evenfinda mapofthesiteof skulls.The skullswereex-
tractedfromsolidlimestone andnotevenone ofthemis neartobeing
complete.Afterdecomposing intotinysections,theyentered thegen-
eralcategory oftheanimalremains. Itis difficult
tounderstand howthe
of
myth head-collecting Sinanthropus could have assumed a definite
form."47 Another victimofsuchprejudiceis KarlDietrichAdamwith
his hypothesis thattheskullof Homo erectussteinheimensis shows
tracesof havingbeen subjectedto postmortal manipulations.48The
destruction of thebase of theskullis his onlycriterion forthehy-
pothesisthatstone-agemanwas frequently thevictimof ritualprac-

43 Rust1991: 175.
44Ibid. 178.
45Maringer1956:64-71.
46Rust1991: 178f.,andHenkeandRothe1994:428.
47Leroi-Gourhan1981:49.
48Adam1991:218.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofReligion
Beginning 429

tices.Betweenthedeathof theindividualand thelaterrecoveryof

thefossil,a numberof taphonomic processestakeplace,whichhave
significant on thelaterfossil.One ofthoseeffects
effects is themodi-
ficationof organicmatter anditsdecay, theassortment or destruction
of hardsectionsas well as sedimentological processes.Andr6Leroi-
Gourhanwas ableto showthat thecranium and lowerjaws areusually
wellpreserved. Thereforeitis onlydue to taphonomic processesthat
theseindividualbodypartssurvive, and notat all due to humanac-
tivities
orpostmortal manipulation.49In thisconnection itis necessary
to emphasisethatscholarscan onlycometo a decisionbasedon a se-
riesof complexinvestigations usinga scanningelectronmicroscope,
as to whetherscratcheson fossilbonesaredue to violencecausedby
a stonetool or theteethof a predatory animal.Since thereare no ar-
chaeologicalfindingsfor the entire orNeolithicperiodto
Palaeolithic
provetheopeningof theskullby humans,noneof thespeculations
aboutpossiblecultpracticeconnected withhumanskullsis based on
facts.50
3. ReligionintheMiddlePalaeolithic
pointofview,theEuropeanmiddlePalae-
Froman anthropological
Thisearlyformof
byHomoneanderthalensis.51
olithicis characterised
Homosapiensordescendant livedovera pe-
ofHomoheidelbergensis

49Leroi-Gourhan 1981:45, 55.

50Experiments withanimalboneshaveshownthatscratchesmadeby stonetools
are absolutelyequal to scratchescausedby sand.Those scratchesoccurfrequently
duringtheprocessof embedding. It is stilldifficult
to distinguishbetweentracesof
humanactivities andtracesofanimalbites.An examination is onlypossiblewiththe
helpofa scanningelectron microscope. See HenkeandRothe1994:20-24.
51The so-calledNeanderthal-problem is, however,a sourceof heateddebate.
Only ten years ago manypalaeanthropologists were convincedthatNeanderthal
manbelongedto our speciesH. sapiens.His characteristic featuresweresupposed
to be due to the extremeclimateof the ice-age.In the meantimemostscientists
have been convincedthatHomo neanderthalensis developeddirectlyfromHomo
heidelbergensis,whilethemodernHomo sapiensdevelopedduringthe same time
inAfricaand conqueredEuropeabout40 000 yearsago. See HenkeandRothe1994:
433ff.,andHenkeandRothe1999:272f.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
430 Ina Wunn

riodofnearly100000 years,duringwhichthelandscape,climateand
livingconditions changeddramatically. Theseenvironmental changes
might have contributed to thespecial anatomicalfeatures ofthe Nean-
derthalman.Surelytheneedto adaptto a frequently changing habitat
forcedH. neanderthalensis todevelopsociocultural abilitiesthatwere
closelyrelatedtotheprogressive evolution ofintelligence andpsycho-
logical The
abilities.52 frequent environmental changes towhich H. ne-
anderthalensis had to adaptmadelifeimmensely challenging. In the
warmerand humidperiodsof theEem period,denseforestscovered
thelandscape.Populationmigration was onlypossiblein thevalleys.
The faunaconsistedof elephant, deer,stag,aurochs,bearand others.
Sufficientfood-supply inthedirectsurroundings allowsonetobelieve
thatNeanderthal manwas relatively stationary duringthisclimaticpe-
riod.The excavatedsettlement of Weimar-Ehringsdorf was inhabited
during this time. During the initial
phase of cooler climate theflora
changed. Fir and pine trees were common and formed largeandhumid
forests.The winterswerecold and snowwas plentiful; evenin sum-
mertime thetemperature remainedlow. Not onlynon-migrating ani-
malswerehuntedbyNeanderthal man;herdsofreindeer, wildhorse,
bisonandmammoth providedsufficient opportunity forhunting. Dur-
ing the coldest periods the forestsdisappeared, and made room for

52StevenMithenemphasisesthatnatural technicalintelli-
historyintelligence,
gence,socialandlinguistic ofNeanderthal
intelligence manwereall welldeveloped,
buttherewas stilla lackofinteraction
betweenthefourdomainsofthemind.Cogni-
tivefluidity
tookplace onlybetweenthedomainsof social andlinguistic intelligence
(Mithen1996: 143and 147ff.)Theauthorofthisarticlehasa different
opinion.In gen-
eralthelithiccultureofNeanderthalmanis theMousterian,whichis stillsimplecom-
paredto thetechnology oftheupperPalaeolithic.On theotherhandthelithiccultures
arenotstrictlyrelatedtotheone or theotherhumanspecies.Homoneanderthalensis
toowas foundtogether withthemoreadvancedtoolsof theupperPalaeolithic, while
Homosapienswas foundwiththesimpletoolsof theMousterian culture.Therefore
directconnections betweena certainhumanspeciesand its lithicculturecannotbe
proved.The technicalskillsoftheyounger H. neanderthalensisandearlyH. sapiens
obviouslydidnotdiffer. Thatmeansthatthereis nopalaeanthropologicalevidencefor
theassumption offundamental difference
betweenthemindsofH. neanderthalensis
andH. sapiens(HenkeandRothe1999: 275, Reynolds1990: 263ff).

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beginning
ofReligion 431

prairiesandtundra.
The climatebecamedrywithextremelycoldwin-
tersandrelatively
mild,butshortsummers.The prairieswerefullof
gamewhichmigrated withtheseasons.53
The MagicofHunting
intheMiddlePalaeolithic
The hunting activitiesofthePalaeolithicman,whichMirceaEliade
andotherscholarstakeforgranted, areonlyabletobe provedwithref-
erenceto laterperiodsofice-age.At thetownofLehringen nearVer-
den an derAllertheskeletonof an elephanthad been preserved that
hadbeenkilledwiththeaid ofa woodenspear,foundbetweentheribs
oftheanimal.Thisis impressive evidenceofthefactthatHomonean-
derthalensis was able to successfullyhuntbig game.Therefore it can
be assumedthatMirceaEliade'spreciseconceptions ofreligionduring
prehistorictimesmayatleastbe correct withregardtothepeopleofthe
Mousterian. He describesthisreligionas "magic-religious conceptions
of Palaeolithicman"as follows.54 The documents regarding thereli-
gion of thePalaeolithicman are obscure,he says,but available.
Their
be
meaningcan deciphered if thescholarsucceedsin inserting these
documents intoa semanticsystem.55 Thissemanticsystemis already
givenbytheresultsofinvestigations ofrecenthunter-gatherer commu-
nities.Theirsimilarlifestyle offerssufficient
certaintyfor identicalor
verysimilarreligionsofrecenthunter-gatherers andPalaeolithic man.
Therefore Homoneanderthalensis believedthattheanimalis a being
quitesimilarto man,buttalentedwithsupernatural forces.He was
convinced thatgodssuchas the"MasteroftheAnimals"or"Supreme
Being"existed.The killof theanimaltookplace aftera complicated
ritual.On theotherhandritesmusthave existed,whichwerelinked
witha skull-cult anddepositsoflongbones.Similarly, Ioan Couliano
arguesthat, "either similarmodels of well-known primitivepeoples
arereferred to,or one dispenseswithanymodel.The HistoryofReli-
gioncan onlyuse thefirst option,as imperfect as itmaybe. Scholars

53See HenkeandRothe1994:525.
54Eliade 1978: 15ff.
55Ibid. 18.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
432 Ina Wunn

havetoendeavour todecipher thementalhorizonofthepeopleofpre-

historictimesby usingtheresultsofethnographic andarchaeological
studies."56JohnCampbellconcludesfromthemyths ofknownpeoples
thattheremustbe close connections betweenthereligionsof Palae-
olithicman and recenthunter-gatherers. The followingconviction is
bothprecondition andresultofhisinvestigations: "I findthatitsmain
resulthas beenitsconfirmation ofa thought I havelongandfaithfully
entertained: oftheunityoftheraceofman,notonlyin itsbiologybut
also in itsspiritualhistory."57He proveshisassumption withthehelp
ofa comparison. Underthetitle"The StageofNeanderthal Man" the
readerfindsthedetaileddescription ofthelifehabitsofthesmalland
delicateNegritosof theAndamanIslandsin theGulfof Bengal,but
Campbellfailstoprovetheconnections betweenthehabitsofa people
of recenttropicalAsia and an anatomically different prehistoric peo-
ple which lived in borealclimates 100 000 yearsago.58 Another argu-
mentofJohnCampbell'sis founded on archaeological facts.The stone
bladesof theMousterian (thematerialcultureofNeanderthal manis
mainlyMousterian)are stillverysimilar,a widerrangeof different
toolswas unknownat thattime.This means,forCampbell,thatthe
customof tool-making was carefully handeddownfromone genera-
tiontoanother, comparably tocustomsofrecent bushman culture. This
extraordinary attentionis due to a certainfeeling of the holy, which
was connected withthemanufacturing anduse ofthetool.59Thepass-
ing on of Palaeolithicreligionto religionsof recenthunter-gatherer
communities servesas a proofthatthemythsofrecentpeoplesorigi-
natedinthePalaeolithic andhavebeenhandeddowntilltodaywithout
anychanges.This meansthatJosephCampbellconstructed a typical
circularargument. Today's behaviours and myths are taken as proof,
in orderto postulatetheexistenceof thesamebehavioursand myths
as practisedbyPalaeolithicman.Thenthepostulateitselfis takenas

56Eliade andCouliano:1991:27.
57Campbell1987:v.
58Ibid.365ff.
59Ibid.364f.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofReligion
Beginning 433

a voucherto provetheunchanged existenceof thosemythsfromthe

Palaeolithicup tonow.
The opinionthatPalaeolithicmanalreadyhad a complicated reli-
gion,withcertainnotionsoftheholyandvariousrituals, canbe found
in nearlyeveryreligiousreference work.FritzHartmann writesfor
example:"Themagicofthehuntbelongsto thistypically humancon-
ception of theworld."60
Eveniftheconsequencesdrawnfromthearchaeologically secured
factsin thepastseemfrequently exaggerated, several sentences in the
volumeof Johannes Maringerexplaintheintention of theauthors.It
wasthecommonstatement thatprehistoric manwas a merebeastwith-
outa developedmindthatmadetheopponents of thispointof view
lookforcounter-arguments whichareno longerdefendable inthelight
ofmodernresearch results.61 The use ofethnographic analogiesto re-
construct prehistoric
religion is based on a specificunderstanding of
theevolutionof religion.In thenineteenth centuryCharlesDarwin's
of
theory biological evolution influencednearly branchesof sci-
all
ence.In thefieldsofthestudyof religionand anthropology, scholars
likeEdwardBurnett Tylor or James George Frazerdevelopedconcep-
tionsofreligiousevolutionwhichhave strongly determined research
untiltoday.Tylor as well as Frazer were convinced that theycould
provean ascendingdevelopment ofreligionfromprimitive originsto
themodemreligions oftheindustrial age. According to thistheory the
religionsof recenthunter-gatherer communities can be classifiedas
relicsfromancienttimes.62 Thismeans,on thecontrary, thatitis pos-
theconsciousness
sibleto reconstruct of ancientpeoplewiththehelp
ofknowledgeaboutthereligionof today'shunter-gatherer communi-
ties.However,onlya briefinsightintothemultiplicity of so-called
primitive revealsthattheircontents
religions andsymbolsarenotsim-
ilarbyanymeans.According toMax Raphael,thefaith-conceptions of

60Hartmann see, forexample,Grim1998:

1957: 403. Amongthelatestliterature
and
1107-1108, Hultkrantz1998: 746-752.
61Maringer1956:59ff.
62Michaels(ed.) 1997:41-60and77-89.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
434 Ina Wunn

recenthunter-gatherercommunities cannotbe consulted inordertode-

rivefromthema certainbeliefofprehistoric man.Even peopleliving
on a relatively
primitive economical level up to thepresentday,have
beenaffected by theirpast,whichhas influenced theirstateof mind.
As a resulttheirideas and religiousconceptions changedin thesame
manneras thebeliefsystemof modemcommunities did.63The an-
thropologistWilhelmEmilMiihlmann acknowledges thearguments of
Max Raphaelwhenhe emphasisesthatall knownprimitive religions
are youngerthantheologicalreligions.64 Even if ecologicaland eco-
nomicalprerequisites of differentsocietiesare thesame,theydo not
necessarilyhavethesameor a similarbeliefsystem, identicalrituals,
symbols and practices.Hermann Schulz emphasises:"Kulturellauf
das engsteverwandte Gruppenkoinnen einenreligiois-symbolischund
artefaktreichen
Ritualismus entwickeln (Sepik-Gebiet) oderinnerhalb
derelaboriertenritualsymbolischen Medien tendentiell nichtreligiojse,
artefakt-armeProgramme elaborieren (Kapauku)."65
The arguments showthatit is by no meanssufficient to findproof
forthehunting practicesofNeanderthal maninordertoimplyanykind
ofreligionandespeciallynota definite andwell-known religion.
Bear-cult

The existenceof thecultofthebearin themiddlePalaeolithicpe-

riodis takenforgranted.
AkeHultkrantzwrites:"Die Kulturen
desark-

63Max Raphael writes:"Man hat diese Schwierigkeit umgehenwollen durch

Heranziehenvon Aussagensogenannter primitiver Diese nurin sehr
Kulturv~Slker.
engenGrenzenm6glicheAnalogietibersieht, daBauchdieseStAmme eineGeschichte
gehabt haben - eine regressive statt
der der
progressiven Kulturvi61ker. Es liegtein
unberechtigtes Vorurteilin derAnnahme der Einfrierungdes Gewesenen; denndie
'Primitiven'finden sich, selbstwo sie auf dem Stadium der Jagdwirtschaft stehen
gebliebensind, mit den altenWerkzeugen und Waffen einer anderen Umgebung
die starken,
gegentiber: denEinzelmenschen an MkichtigkeittiberragendenTieresind
ersetztdurchwesentlich kleinereundschwiichere" (Raphael1978: 78).
64Miihlmann 1957: 1198.
65Schulz1993: 189.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofReligion
Beginning 435

tischenRaumessindBruchstiicke einerpalaolithischen Jagdkultur."66

Friedrich Heiler67referstosimilarideas as thoseexpressedbyJoseph
Campbell,who describesthecult of thebear in an interesting, but
hardlywell-grounded manner. FirstCampbell refersto a bear-festival
among the Ainu.After thekilling thecaptured
of bearandduringthe
ceremonies, theskulloftheanimalis putat thetopof a longstick.68
In a secondstepCampbellportrays Neanderthal manin impressive
terms:".. . whentheremainsofa strangely brutishyetmanlikeskele-
tonwerefoundin a limestone quarrynotfarfromDiisseldorf, in the
Valleyof Neander."69 The following descriptions shortlymention the
cavesoftheAlps,wheretheremainsof thebearsweredetected.The
excavators hadtheimpression thatthearrangement ofthefossilbones
couldhardlybe due to nature,so theyattributed thisto theactivities
ofH. neanderthalensis, whowereassumedtohavekilledtheanimals
and arrangedtheirbonesduringcertainceremonies.70 It is truethat
nearlyeverywhere in theArctic primitive peoples know certainritu-
als connectedwiththehuntingof thebear.71The excavatorsof the
caves,EmilBachlerandKarlHt*rmann, tooktheseceremonies ofcir-
cumpolarpeoplesto provetheirhypothesis of an ancientbear-cult in
prehistorictimes.72In thefollowing years severaldiscoveries of simi-
larbear-cavesseemedto support thehypothesis ofcavebearworship.
Emil Bachlerhimselfdiscoveredbearbone depositsat theWilden-
mannlisloch in Switzerlandand in Slovenia'sMornovaCave. In 1946
Andr6Leroi-Gourhan excavatedsevencave bearskullsarranged in a
circleinFurtins Cave,Sa6ne-et-Loire. In 1950KurtEhrenberg secured

66Hultkrantz 1998:751.
67See Heiler1979:78.
68Campbell1987:334ff.
69Ibid.339.
70Ibid.341f.
71Edsman1957: 841.
72
Maringer1956:95ff.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
436 Ina Wunn

a depositoflongbonesarranged together withcave bearskullsin the

SalzhofenCave in theAustrian Alps.73
The latestfindof supposedtracesof prehistoric cave bearworship
was publishedin 1996. In theRumanianBihor-Mountains Christian
Lascu et al. discovereda cave richin palaeontologicalcave bear
deposits.74 Scholarssuch as Johannes Maringeror Ake Hultkrantz
referto thereports oftheexcavators whentheyinterpret thedeposits
as theremainder ofcultpractice.
Thehistorian KarlNarralso givesan
accountofthedepositsofcavebearskullsandlongbones,butremains
sceptical.75
A detaileddiscussionofthefindsofcavebearbonesfroma palaeon-
tologicaland ethnographic pointof view led to completely different
results.76The carefuland criticaluse of ethnographic analogues,on
whichthetheoriesof a cave bearcultis foundedin theend,leads to
evencontrary results.
IfH. neanderthalensishadknowncavebearwor-
ship,itstraceswouldhavebeenfoundinsidethesettlements. The re-
mainsofsucha cultwouldhavebeenthebonedepositsofNeanderthal
man's favourite and mostdangerousgame,amongwhich,however,
thebeardid notrank.Recentpeoples,whoknowthebearcult,catch
or killa bearin his winteraccommodation andbringitto theirsettle-
ment.Thereitis killedandeatenbythevillagersunderdifferent ritual
regulations.The bones of thedead game are putintoa holyplace or
are carefullyburiednearthevillage,butneverbrought back againto
thedwellingofthebear.
The mostimpressivearguments againstcave bear worshipcome
nevertheless fromthebone depositsitself:Crucialpalaeontological
objectionsare to be statedfirstof all. Both the cave bear (Ursus
spelaeus),whichwas extinctat theend of thelast ice age, and the
brownbear (Ursus arctos),whichspreadall overEurasiasincethe
Eem period,showa strong preferenceforcave accommodation. There

73See Lascu et al. 1996: 19-20,andMaringer1956:91-96.

74 See Lascu et al. 1996.
75Narr1957: 10.
76Wunn1999a:3-23.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofReligion
Beginning 437

theyhideduringwintertime and givebirthto theiryoung.The caves

wheretherelicsof allegedbear worshipwerefoundare thenatural
habitatof theanimals,wheretheyspendthelong wintersand hide
theiryoung.At thoseplaces the bears sometimesdied for several
reasons,forexampleage, illness,lack of food.Therefore theirbone
fossilsareboundto be foundin thoseplaces,iftheywerenotcarried
offby carrioneatersor removedby sedimentological processes.The
occurrence ofcavebearbonesinthecavesoftheice age,whichserved
generations of bearfamiliesas shelter, is just whata palaeontologist
wouldexpect.
The proponents ofPalaeolithic bearworshipdid notonlythinkthe
in
mereoccurrenceof bear bones the caves to be remarkable, but
also theirallegedassortment and arrangement in whichtheywere
found.However,therefirst takesplace an amassment ofbearbonesin
certainplacesby the activities
ofthe bears themselves, as Andr6Leroi-
Gourhancorrectly noticed.The partsof skeletonsof the deceased
animals,whichoriginally are in theiranatomicalorder,are thrown
in disorderor scatteredby latergenerations ofbears.Sometimesthey
are pressedto thewalls,wheretheyare relatively protected against
furtherdecay.77Also theoutweighing of skullsand longbones is a
resultof a processof naturaldecayand notdue to humanactivities.
The mentioned partsoftheskeletonarerelatively heavyandcompact,
so thattheyare moreable to resistdecomposition processesthan
thesmallvertebrae, ribs,foot-bones or hand-bones. A resultof those
processes is the natural selectionof the bone material.78 But not
onlydecomposition influences the state of the bones. Duringtheir
historythe caves were floodedseveraltimes,as the accumulated
sediments prove.Such floodings do notremainwithoutinfluence on
thefossilmaterial.Withhighwaterlevelandstronger currentall loose
materialis eitherrinsedaway or carriedfora certaindistanceand
thendroppedat a place wherethereis a weakercurrent. Duringthese
is
processesthe anatomicalbone order radicallyaltered.Therefore

77Leroi-Gourhan1981:39.
78Ziegler1975:44-45.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
438 Ina Wunn

theaccumulation of severalskullsin one place and theabsence

of otherbonesis dueto geologicalandsedimentological processes
andnottohumanintervention. Thefloating abilityof sedimentscan
be reducedby prominent partsof thewallsor unevenness of the
floor,
resultingin somebonepartsbeingdeposited in theproximity
of obstacles.
A concrete example of thiseffectis the discovery of
severalskullsdeposited in a crosslikepatternin theCold Cave of
theBihorMountains. Theobstacle, whichreduced thetransportability
of theskullscrucially,was a stone,at whichthefossilskullswere
Justas littleas theassortment
deposited.79 of thebonematerial is
proofof humanactivities, so theadjustment of thefossilsis an
unnaturalprocess.The movements of a medium,
transport be itwind,
sedimentor water, aretransferredto thematerial to be transported,
so thatthemovement in a specialdirectionleadsto itsassortment.
Thereforetheassortment ofbearskullsis notduetohuman activities,
butto theflowing wateror othertransport mediums in thecaves.It
cannotbe saidclearlyenough:Therewas no cavebearworship in
themiddlePalaeolithic periodat all. The bearcavesshowexactly
whata palaeontologist
wouldexpect. Nothing suggests thatthenatural
of
process decay and sedimentation was at any time interruptedor
disturbed.80

Combined ofmanandcavebear
burials

In connectionwithassumedbearworship theopinionwas held

thatsometimes menandbearwereburied togetherinonegrave.81
As
evidenceservedtheexcavations
atLe R6gourdou nearLascaux,
where
undera hillofdebris
boththeremainsofa bearanda Neanderthal
man
werepreserved.TheFrench Fabienne
archaeologist Maydemonstrated
thattheremainsof thebearboreno connection withthehuman

79See Lascu et al. 1996: 30, plate3.

80Wunn1999a:6ff.
81Rust1986: 15.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofReligion
Beginning 439

andquestioned
skeleton, therewas a funeral
whether atLe R6gourdou
at all.82

Skulldepositsandskullworship.
Justas thebearworshipwas regarded as irrefutable fact,therewas
hardlyany doubtthatNeanderthal man subjectedthe heads of the
a
deceasedto specialtreatment and set themup forritualpurposes.
Otherscholarsare convincedthatNeanderthal man huntedfellow
humansto kill and eat them.83 It is said thattheskullsof thekilled
laterbecamethefocalpointof a ritual.This hypothesis is suggested
by loan Couliano: "Einige Schidel sind in einerWeise verformt,
die den Gedankenan ein Herauslisendes Gehirnsnahelegen."84
AlfredRustexpresseshimselfabsolutelyclearly:He is surethatthe
findsof isolatedlowerjaws and craniumsarecloselyconnectedwith
religiouscustoms.85 Detailedand critically Johannes Maringer argues
the questionof the skullcult.He discussesthe findswhichwere
consideredas proofof thepresenceof theallegedpractices.There
is, forexample,the crushedchildlikeskull fromGibraltaror the
findsof humanremainsat Weimar-Ehringsdorf and particularlythe
outstanding find of the skullof Monte Circeo, which is mentioned
by everyauthoras evidenceof thedescribedritualpractice.Finally
he comesto thefollowing result:"Das FundbildderGuattari-Grotte
sprichtklarfiireinenKult,in dessenMittelpunkt derSchaidelstand.
Urspriinglich scheint er auf einem Stock aufgesteckt gewesenzu
sein... EinemheiligenBannkreisgleichumgabihn der Kranzvon
Steinen.DerganzeHohlenteil erweckt denEindruck, als habeerdenin
dervorderen Hohlewohnenden Urmenschen als Heiligtum gedient";86
and further,"Die Schidelsetzungen diirften allerWahrscheinlichkeit
nach eine Art Schidelkultdarstellen, in dem das Gedischtnis der

82Ibid. 15.
83Ullrich1978:293ff.See also theoverviewin HenkeandRothe1999:277.
84Eliade andCouliano1991:28.
85Rust1991: 194.
86
Maringer1956: 80.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
440 Ina Wunn

Verstorbenen gepflegt undihreHilfewie auchihrSchutzfiirdie Sippe

erflehtwurde."87 Even Andr6Leroi-Gourhan agreesthattheskullof
MonteCirceois an intentional depositionof a skull,buthe refuses
to drawanyconclusionsconcerning religiouscustoms.88On theother
handhe can provethatall otherfindsof isolatedheads or jaws are
theresultof taphonomic processes.89 Aftera carefulre-examination
of theoriginalreportsof theexcavations, FabienneMay statesthat
noneofthedescriptions of theexcavations to confirm
is sufficient or
disprovethehypothesis ofa ritual.90The discovery ofa supposedcult
siteatTeshik-Tash inUzbekistan, wheretheskullofa childwas setup
betweenseveralskullsofibex,does notprovethehypothesis ofa cult.
In thiscase theremnants of ibexesand theskullofthechildhaveno
connection at all.91Sinceitcouldbe shownthateventheskulldeposit
of MonteCirceowas nottheresultof humanactivities, butthatthe
damagesoftheskullweredue to theworkofhungry hyenas,thelast
argument in favour ofa skull cultis disproved.92
Cannibalism
Cannibalismhas alreadybeen mentionedin connectionwiththe
depositionof humanskulls.AndreLeroi-Gourhan expresseshim-
self as follows:"Die Existenzeines religidsenKannibalismusim
Palaiolithikummag wahrscheinlich sein,doch ld8tsich dies bei der
gegenwartigen Materiallageabsolutnichtbeweisen.Und dennoch
spricht kein Autorvon der paliolithischenReligion,ohne fiiroder
gegendie Kannibalismusthese Stellungzu beziehen,wobeiin gr68e-
remUmfangaufethnographische Beispielezuri*ckgegriffenwird."93
thoseethnographic
But particularly analogiesgive strongarguments
the of
against hypothesis prehistoric cannibalism.The anthropologist

87Ibid.85.
88Leroi-Gourhan 1981:53.
89Ibid.54-56.
90May 1986: 17.
91Ibid.33-34.
92HenkeandRothe1994:527.
93Leroi-Gourhan 1981:56.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beginning
ofReligion 441

GabrieleWeissand thearchaeologist Heidi Peter-Richer discussthe

topicofcannibalism Theystatethattheethnographic
carefully.94 ma-
terialitselfis frequentlynotconvincing, becauseitis basedmainlyon
sensational reports ofpastadventurers. Thereareno assertions byeye-
witnesses, butstories of man eaterswerealwaysreported by writers
who onlystatedthattheyhad heardaboutthosecustoms.The cus-
tomof cannibalismitselfwas alwaysstatedto have been givenup
just severalyearsbeforethearrivalof thetraveller.95 Frequently the
assumption thata certainpeoplewas guiltyof cannibalism was used
in to
propagandisticallyorder be able to lead a waragainstthispeo-
ple or to forcethemintoslavery.96 On theotherhandit was a well
knownrumour in Africaevenup to thebeginning ofthiscentury that
Europeans fed on the fleshofAfrican It
children.97 is arguedby Heidi
Peter-Richer thatthereis no evidenceof cannibalism amongrecent
peoplesat all.98Thismeansthatitis nonsenseto searchforthereason
andtheoriginofthatcustomin prehistoric times.It cannotbe decided
towhatextentSigmundFreud,withhishypothesis oftheoriginofhu-
mansociety, mustbe blamedforevokingtheidea ofearlyman-eaters.
In his TotemundTabuhe madeseveralstatements abouttheoriginof
humansociety, claimingthatat thebeginning ofprehistory a groupof
humanswasruledbya despoticpatriarch, untilhewas killedandeaten
byhissons.99The subtitle ofhisbook,"EinigeUbereinstimmungen im
SeelenlebenderWildenundderNeurotiker,"1? reflects, however,the

94Weiss1987: 142-159,andPeter-Rbcher 1989.

95Volhard1939: 369.
96GabrieleWeiss(1987: 152) mentions theexampleofa decreeofQueenIsabella
in 1503,who gave permission to enslavetheCaribbeanIndiansbecausetheywere
saidtobe man-eaters.
97Ibid.150.
98Peter-Richer1998.On thecontrary theAmericananthropologist
ChristyTurner
is convincedthattheAnasazi,an Indianpeoplewholivedin thesouthernpartsofthe
UnitedStatesduringhistoricaltimes,did human See
hunting. Turner
1999.
99See Weiss1987:44-45.
100Weiss1987:44.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
442 Ina Wunn

opinionofmanyofhiscontemporaries andcolleagues,andcontributes
to thepictureofthementality ofNeanderthal manuntiltoday.101
The factson whichthetheory ofprehistoriccannibalism arebased
are usuallypoor.Frequently it was sufficient
to assumecannibalism
existed,if a skeletonwas foundincomplete or notin anatomicalor-
der.102It is stillconsidereda strongproofforcannibalism whensplit
humanbonesoccur,as wereexcavatedat Krapina.The defenders of
thecannibalism thesisarguethattheremnants of humanboneslook
absolutely similar to the scattered animalbones at thesame excava-
tionsite.Therefore theycometotheconclusionthatNeanderthal man
treatedfellowhumansin thesamewayas he treated game.Thisargu-
mentis stillstressedbytheanthropologists TimWhiteandAlbanDe-
fleur:Scattered bonesofhumanbeingsanddeerinthecave ofMoula-
Guercyshowthesamescratches.103 Thisargument presupposes, how-
ever,that the humans as wellas theanimalswere killedbyNeanderthal
man.Boththehumansandtheanimalscould,however, havebeenthe
victimsofcarnivores, forexamplehyenaorcave lion,orthescratches
on humanand animalbonesmaybe due to taphonomic processes.104
ThisthesiswouldexplaintheremainsofKrapinaas wellas thefindings
of Moula-Guercy. In anycase, theidenticaltreatment of humanand
animalbonesandthemissingofanytracesof a ritualdo notpromote
thehypothesis of a religiouscustom.In thiscase KrapinaandMoula-
GuercywouldprovethatNeanderthal manhuntedotherhumansfor
meat.Thisseems,however, to be unlikely,becausethehunters ofthe
Mousterian livedin a habitatfullofgame,whichwas forsureeasierto
killthanhumans.

101
Campbell1987: 339.
102Maringer1956: 81f. In theexcavation
reportof the siteWeimar-Ehringsdorf
cannibalismis notmentioned at all. See Feustel1989: 391-393.
103Defleuret al. 1999: 128-131.
104Itis stillmorethandifficult to decidewhetherscratcheson bones are due to
humanactivities,to carnivoresor to taphonomic processes.The topicis stilldebated
amongscientists.Foran overview, see HenkeandRothe1994: 19-25.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofReligion
Beginning 443

The archaeologist Heidi Peter-RiScherscrutinisedthe theoriesof

allegedcannibalism in earlyhistory.
In thisconnection she discussed
thefindsof Krapinain detail.In herconclusion,she pointsout that
thehumanfossilsof Krapinado not stemfroma groupof humans
killedduringa singleevent,butstemfromfrequent usageofthecave
overa periodof 40 000 years.One of the mainarguments in favour
of thehypothesis of cannibalismwas thebad condition of thebones.
Since,however, theexcavators operatedwithdynamite, thecondition
oftheboneshardlyallowsanyconclusions aboutthecauseofdeath.105
Scratcheson thebones,supposedto be tracesof stonetools,have
notbeenexaminedwiththehelpof a scanningelectronmicroscope.
Withoutsuch an examination the cause of the scratchescannotbe
detectedat all. In thelongrunthereis nota singlepointofreference
whichcouldprovethetheory ofritualcannibalism in thePalaeolithic
period.

Funeralsandcultofthedead

An intended funeralis considered

a clearindication
ofconceptions
of a life afterdeath.1' Althoughthe archaeologist FabienneMay
remainssceptical- archaeologycan probablyprovethefacts,but
hardlyfindtheintellectual background - funeralscan at leastserve
as indicationsof possiblereligiousconceptions,if not as proof.107
Therefore reportsof allegedfuneralsalwayscause attention,evenif
cautiousarchaeologistswarnaboutoverinterpretingbadlydocumented

105 1998:41.
Peter-R6cher
106Heiler1979: 516, and Wi8mann1980: 730. Wi8manexplains:"In der Reli-
gionsgeschichtebegegneteineVielzahlvonzumindest teilweisereligi6smotivierten
Verhaltens-undVorstellungsformen,die - hierdemBegriff Bestattungzugeordnet
- denUmgangderLebendenmitdemLeichnamdesVerstorbenen kennzeichnenund
die darinimplizitenthaltenen oderexplizitgediuSerten
Vorstellungen Anschauungen,
die dessenExistenzform des Totenzu
imTod oderjenseitsdes Todes,das Verhdiltnis
denLebendenoderdemLebenselbstbetreffen."
107May 1986:3.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
444 Ina Wunn

excavations.10s loan Coulianoand MirceaEliade are convincedthat

Neanderthal manburiedhisdead.1' Eliade notonlytakesthefunerals
forgranted, butbelievesthatthepositionofseveralskeletons indicate
thatNeanderthal man fearedthe returnof the dead or hoped for
rebirth.110Bothconceptions arewellknownin thehistory ofreligion.
Manyfuneralceremonies amongprimitive culturesshowthatthekin
of thedead triedto prevent thereturnof thedeceased.In doingso,
thecorpsewas boundorstruck. Wholeswerecutintotheshoulders or
thebellyand thesinewsweredestroyed. These precautionary actions
weresupposedto prevent thedead bodyfromrisingandreturning.111
Ake Str6mand HaraldsBiezais mentionan exampleof thebeliefin
rebirth fromhistoricaltimes.Theyinterpret funerals oftheGermanic
people as follows: The corpsewas buriedin a manner resembling the
positionof a childin itsmother'suterus,so thatthedead could be
reborn aftera certainperiod.112
JohannesMaringer is convincedofthe
existenceoffunerals sincetheMousterian,too.As proofhe describes
theexcavationsat Kiik-Koba,theMountainof Carmeland Teshik-
Tash.He also mentions placesinWesternEuropesuchas Le Moustier,
La Chapelle-aux-Saints and La Ferrassie.113The excavationreports
seem to provethatthe hunterof the Mousterianalreadybelieved
in life afterdeath.The youngman of Le Moustierwas buried,as
Johannes Maringerbelieves,in a sleepposture."It is difficult
to say
whether he understood thissleepas temporary and expectedto wake

108A comment ofAndrdLeroi-Gourhan: "So istdas ProblemderPaliioanthropinen-

Griibernursehrunvollkommen erhellt;die Verantwortung trifft
voll und ganz die
Ausgriiber, die nicht dem Wunsch zu widerstehen vermochten,'das Fossil ihres
Lebens'zu finden"(Leroi-Gourhan 1981:67).
109Coulianospecifiesas follows:"Die unterdem NamenNeandertaler bekannte
Menschenrasse...glaubtezweifellosan eine Artvon UberlebenIhrerToten,die,
aufderrechtenSeite liegendundden KopfnachOstengewandt, begrabenwurden"
(Couliano 1991: 28).
110Eliade 1978:20-22.
"' 1980: 733.
Wil3mann
112 andBiezais 1975:65.
Strtim
113Maringer1956:71-76.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beginning
ofReligion 445

up in anotherworld,"Maringer explains.114 The foetalpositionofthe

humanskeletonsfoundat La Ferrassieand Carmelis strongproof
forthehypothesis thatNeanderthal manboundhis dead becausehe
fearedtheirreturn.115 Traces of firein thosecaves, whichserved
as temporary shelter,he interprets as remnants of funeralcustoms.
"Vielleichthieltder Urmenschdie Aschenschicht fUireine Decke,
die keinTotenzu durchdringen vermige, die ihn also an sein Grab
banne.Der Abwehrkraft des Feuersstehtwiederum seinewohltuende,
wirmendeWirkung gegeniiber.M-glicherweise solltedas Feuerden
erkaltetenLeichnamerwairmen, ein Zug der Totenfiirsorge."116 In
Johannes Maringer's opinion,the excavation reports do notprove the
existenceof funeralgifts.But thebones of ungulates,whichwere
frequentlyfoundincloseproximity ofthetombsare,Maringer thinks,
thetracesof mealsto honourthedeceased.'17All documents of the
excavationswhichJohannesMaringerused to provehis opinionof
funeralritesin the Palaeolithicperiodwere recentlyexaminedby
FabienneMay.118 She comesto thefollowing conclusions:Not all so
calledfuneralsdeservethatname.Neitherat Le Regourdou,norLa
Qina,orLe Roc de Marsaldida singlefuneral takeplace.Manynon-
Europeanexcavations do notsupporttheidea of Mousterian burials,
forexampleplaceslikeCarmelorTeshik-Tash. Atotherplaces,e.g.La
Chapelle-aux-Saintsor outside Europe, in Shanidar,thecircumstances
attheexcavation sitesallowus toassumethatintentional funeralstook
all
place.Nearly graves contain a
only singlecorpse, with theexception
ofLa Ferrassie,wheretwochildren wereburiedtogether, andQafzeh,
wheretheskeletons of an adultand a childwerefoundtogether. The
graveof Shanidarcould probablybe a collectiveburialsiteas well.
14 corpsesoutof34 allegedfunerals werefoundin cavitiesorgraves,
all withoutadditionalinstallations.FabienneMay statesthatnatural

114Ibid.76.
115Ibid.77.
116 Ibid. 77.
117Ibid.77-78.
118May 1986: 11-35.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
446 Ina Wunn

recessescouldbe selected consciously in orderto accommodate the

corpse,butthatthishypothesis can not be verified.119All graves were
foundin thedirect neighbourhood of settlements - thatis themain
reasonthey weredetected at all.The remains of firewerefound atsome
burialsites,butFabienne Maypointsoutthatthosefireswerelitby
latergenerationsin cavesandsettlements,
the andhavenoconnection
withfuneral ritesbymourners orkin.120 Inthemiddle Palaeolithic,the
deadwereoccasionally covered by slabs of stone. Thiscan be proven
insixcases.121
In connection withassumed funeral sitesas forexampleKrapina
or Kebara,thequestionariseswhether Neanderthal manmayhave
subjectedhis dead ones to a specialtreatment, i.e. whethertheytook
offthefleshfromthecorpsesandonlyburiedthebones.Thereis
first
evidence forthiscustom in theNeolithic period.122In thecase
oftheexcavation siteatKrapina thecauseforthisassumption is the
badcondition ofthebones.This,however, is morelikelyduetothe
activities
of predatory animals.Laterin theupperPalaeolithic, the
othersinglereasonto assumesuchfuneral riteswas thepresence
of ochreat thebones.Consequently theexcavators cameto the
conclusion thatthebonesthemselves musthavebeencoloured. On
theotherhandan inquiry intothefactsdemonstrated thatthebones
quickly take on the ochre colouring if it is present in thedirect
environment, whichwasoften thecase in campsitesofNeanderthal
man.123 Tracesofcremation arenotfound inthemiddlePalaeolithic.
All skeletons whoseposition couldbe reconstructed withthehelp
of theexcavation reportswere buried lying on theirbackor their
side withbent,butnotextremely bent,legs.This meansthatthe

119Ibid. 149.
120Ibid. 150.
121These are two burialsitesat La Ferrassie,and theones at Monte
Rdgourdou,
and
Circeo (whichcan no longercountas funeral),La Chapelle-aux-Saints Qafzeh
(ibid. 152).
122Peter-Rtcher1998:41.
123May 1986: 162.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beginning
ofReligion 447

corpseswerenotboundbeforetheburial.Therewas no evidenceof
funeralgifts.FabienneMaycomestothefollowing conclusions:There
is scarcelyany evidenceforintentional funeralsin theMousterian.
Frequently the excavators to
preferred interpret theirarchaeological
findingsinsteadof describing themcarefully. Nevertheless it seems
man
certainthatNeanderthal buriedveryfew of his dead by putting
themintoa naturalcavityorcoveringthemwithslabs.Ochrewas not
yetused in connection withfuneralsduringthemiddlePalaeolithic
period.Fireplacesin proximity of the gravebear no connectionto
thelatter.Many caves wereinhabitedlater,so thatthetracesof daily
arefrequently
activities foundon andnearthegraves.Thatmeansthat
knivesand otheritemsfoundtherecannotbe interpreted as funeral
gifts.124
The only factwhichremainsof JohannesMaringer'sextensive
considerations is themereexistenceof onlyfewfuneralsduringthe
Mousterian. It seemsnaturalthatNeanderthal manmusthaveknown
feelingssuchas mourning, rage,despairandincredulityatthefinalloss
of a belovedperson.ObviouslythosefeelingsinducedNeanderthal
man fromtimeto timeto handlethecorpseof the deceasedin an
affectionateway.This does notmeanthathe had to believein a life
afterdeathorthathe was capableofreligiousfeelings.Especiallythe
lackofanyfuneral ritesprovestheabsenceofa certaincommonbelief.
On theotherhandthoserarefuneralscan be a first hintof an initial
or
feeling hope that theremight be a certain
form of existenceeven
afterdeath.

Conclusion
ForthewholelowerandmiddlePalaeolithicthereis no evidenceof
anyreligiouspractice.All suchnotionsareeitherproductsofa certain
mentalclimateat thetimeof thediscoveryof thefossils,or of ide-
ologies.The resultsofpalaeanthropological
researchshowthatneither
HomohabilisnorHomoerectuswerecapableofdeveloping a compli-
catedsymbolsystem. In themiddlePalaeolithic,
thetimeofHomone-

124Ibid.211-212.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
448 Ina Wunn

anderthalensis,
things weredifferent.Thisearlyrepresentative ofthe
genusHomohadalready developed advanced intellectual But
abilities.
neitherinconnection withhishunting customs norathissettlements
couldanytracesofcultpractice be found. Firstsignsofa beginning
ofreligiousbeliefina form ofexistence after deatharegivenbythe
rareburials.Butthereareno funeral rituals orfuneral All as-
gifts.
sumptions thatNeanderthal man already believed in an are
afterlife,
merespeculation.Theories ofritualsduring themiddle of
Palaeolithic,
cannibalismorbearworship, belong to the realm of legend.
Thequestion oftheoriginofreligion is stillunsolved. Theorigin
andthedevelopment ofreligious
feeling can be read from archaeolog-
icalfindsofburials.Itis onlyinthemiddlePalaeolithic periodthata
first toabandon
hesitation a belovedis provable. Proper funeralsand
possiblefuneralgiftscanbe madeoutduring theupperPalaeolithic.
the
Only European Mesolithic and the early Neolithic ofAsiaMinor
knowregular funeralcustoms andrituals,a certainspectrum offuneral
and
gifts secondary burials.125An increasing carefor the deadduring
thelast100000 yearsis nevertheless easilytodetect. It canbe sup-
posedthatthedeveloping funeralcustoms werecloselyconnected to
thebeliefinanafterlife.
Obviously religion,whichmeansthebeliefin
a supreme in
being, supernatural power, in an thefeeling
afterlife, of
the"Holy"inthesenseofRudolf Otto,wasnota partofhuman nature
from theverybeginning, as MirceaEliadeassumes, buthadtodevelop
overa periodofthousands ofyears.126

1
Klingerstrasse INAWUNN
D-30655Hannover,
Germany
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam,KarlDietrich
1991 "Der Steinheimer In Heilbronnund das mittlere
Urmenschen-Schlidel."
NeckarlandzwischenMarbachundGundelsheim. 216-219.
Stuttgart,

125See Wunn1999b: 130ff.

126Otto1963.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beginning
ofReligion 449

Atran,Scott
1990 CognitiveFoundations
ofNaturalHistory:Towardsan Anthropology
of
Science.Cambridge.
Binford,Lewis R.
1984Die Vorzeit warganzanders.Miinchen.
Campbell,Joseph
1987Primitive Mythology. NewYork,London,Toronto.
Defleur,Alban,Tim White,PatriciaValensi,LudovicShinak,and EvelyneCrdgut-
Bonnoure
1999 "Neanderthal Cannibalismat Moula-Guercy, Ardbche,France."Science
286: 128-38.
Dickson,Bruce
1990 TheDawn ofBelief:Religionin the UpperPalaeolithicofSouthwestern
Europe.Tucson.
Edsman, Carl-Martin
In Die Religionin Geschichte
1957 "Bdirenfest." undGegenwart, 3rded., 1: 841.
Eliade,Mircea
1978Geschichte derreligidsen Ideen,vol. 1. Freiburg,
Basel,Wien.
Eliade,Mircea andIoan P. Couliano
1991HandbuchderReligionen. Ziirich,Miinchen.
Feustel,Rudolf
1989 "Der Homo sapiensund das Jungpalhiolithikum." In JoachimHerrmann
(ed.), Archiologie in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.Leipzig,
Jena,Berlin,1: 55-64.
Gimbutas, Marija
1987"Prehistoric Religions."In EncyclopediaofReligion,11: 505-515.
1996Die SprachederGottin. Frankfurt am Main.
Goodall,Jane
1990 Througha Window:My ThirtyYearswiththe Chimpanzeesof Gombe.
Boston.
Grim,JohnA.
In Religionin Geschichteund Gegenwart,
1998 "Bairenfest." 4thed., 1: 1107-
1108.
Grzimek, Bernhard (Ed.)
1972 Grzimeks
Tierleben,vol. 10: SaugetiereL ZUirich.
Hartmann,Fritz
1957 "Anthropologie
I." In Die Religionin Geschichte 3rded.,
undGegenwart,
1: 403.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
450 Ina Wunn

Heiler,Friedrich
und Wesender Religion.Stuttgart,
1979 Erscheinungsformen Berlin,Kiln,
Mainz.
Herrmann, Joachim(Ed.)
1989 Archdiologiein der DeutschenDemokratischen
Republik.Leipzig,Jena,
Berlin.2 vols.
Henke,WinfiedandHartmut Rothe
1994 Paldoanthropologie.
Heidelberg.
des Menschen.Berlinetc.
1999Stammesgeschichte
Heyden,Doris
1987 "Caves."In EncyclopediaofReligion,4: 127-133.
Hultkrantz, Ake
1998 "Arktische Religion."In ReligioninGeschichte
undGegenwart,4thed., 1:
746-752.
Isaac, Glynn
1978 "TheFood-sharing BehaviourofProto-human Hominids." Amer-
Scientific
ican 238: 90-108.
James,E.O.
1957Prehistoric Religion:A StudyinPrehistoric New York.
Archaeology.
Lascu,Cristian, FlorianBaciu,MihaiGliganandSerbanSarbu
1996 "A MousterianCave Bear WorshipSite in Transylvania, Roumania."
JournalofPrehistoric Religion10: 17-30.
Leroi-Gourhan,Andr6
1981Die Religionender Vorgeschichte.Frankfurtam Main.
Mania,DietrichandThomasWeber
III. Homo erectus- seineKulturundseineUmwelt."In
1986 "Bilzingsleben
Veroffentlichungendes Landesmuseums inHalle,vol. 39.
fiirVorgeschichte
Berlin.
Johannes
Maringer,
1956 Vorgeschichtliche
Religion.Ziirich,K61n.
May,Fabienne
1986Les Sepultures Paris.
Prdhistoriques.
Michaels,Axel (Ed.)
1997 Klassikerder Religionswissenschaft:
VonFriedrichSchleiermacher bis
MirceaEliade. Miinchen.
Mithen,Steven
1996 The Prehistoryof theMind: The CognitiveOriginsof Artand Science.
London.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beginning
ofReligion 451

Miihlmann,WilhelmEmil
1957"Urmonotheismus."In Die ReligioninGeschichte 3rded.,
undGegenwart,
6: 1198.
Narr,Karl
1957Deutschlandin Ur-undfriihgeschichtlicher
Zeit.Konstanz.
Otte,Marcel
1995 "The Prehistoryof Religion:Data and Method."Journalof Prehistoric
Religion9: 55-75.
Otto,Rudolf
1963Das Heilige.Miinchen.
Heidi
Peter-R6cher,
1998MythosMenschenfresser. Miinchen.
Raphael,Max
1978 Wiedergeburtsmagie
in der Altsteinzeit.
Hg. ShirleyChesneyund Ilse
Hirschfeld
nacheinemManuskript Max Raphaels.Frankfurt
am Main.
Tim
Reynolds,
1990 "The Middle-Upper Palaeolithic in Southwestern
Transition France:Inter-
pretingtheLithicEvidence."In PaulMellars(ed.), TheEmergence
ofMod-
ernHumans.Edinburgh, 262-302.
Michael
Ripinski-Naxon,
1995"Cognition, Symbolization,andtheBeginnings ofShamanism."
Journalof
Prehistoric
Religion9: 43-54.
Rust,Alfred
1991"Der primitiveMensch."In Golo MannandAlfredHeuB(eds.),Propylien
Berlin,Frankfurt
Weltgeschichte. amMain,1: 155-226.
Schrenk,Friedemann
1997Die FriihzeitdesMenschen.Miinchen.
Schulz,Hermann
1993Stammesreligionen. Stuttgart,Berlin,Koln.
Spelke,ElizabethS.
1991"PhysicalKnowledgeinInfancy: Reflectionson Piaget'sTheory."
In Susan
Carey and Rochel Gelman (eds.), The Epigenesisof Mind: Essays on
and
biology cognition. HillsdaleNY, 133-169.
Stolz,Fritz
1988 Grundzuge derReligionswissenschaft.Goittingen.
David,Frederick
Strait, GrineandMarcMoniz
1997"A ReappraisalofEarlyHominidPhylogeny." JournalofHumanEvolution
32: 17-82.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
452 Ina Wunn

Strtim,AkeV. andHaraldsBiezais
1975Germanische undBaltischeReligion.Stuttgart, Mainz.
Berlin,K61ln,
Thieme, Hartmut
1997"LowerPalaeolithicHuntingSpearsfromGermany." Nature385: 807-810.
Turner,Christy
1999Cannibalism and ViolenceinthePrehistoricAmericanSouthwest. Univ.of
Utah.
Ucko,PeterJ.(Ed.)
1977ForminIndigenousart:Schematisation intheArtofAboriginal Australia
and Prehistoric
Europe.Canberra.
Ullrich,Herbert
1978 "Kannibalismus und LeichenzerstiickelungbeimNeandertaler von Krap-
ina."In Krapinski
Pracovjeki EvolucijaHominida,Zagreb,293-318.
Verkamp, BernardJ.
1995TheEvolutionofReligion:A Re-examination. Scranton.
Volhard, Ewald
1939Kannibalismus. Stuttgart.
Weiss,Gabriele
1987Elementarreligionen. Wien,New York.
Whiten, Andrew(Ed.)
1991 NaturalTheoriesof Mind: Evolution,Developmentand Simulationof
Everyday Mindreading. Oxford.
Wi8mann, Hans
1980 "Bestattung In Theologische
I. Religionsgeschichtlich." Realenzyklopddie,
5: 730.
Wunn,Ina
1999a "Bairenkult in urgeschichtlicherZeit: Zur religibisen
Deutungmittel-
Birenfossilien."
paliiolithischer Zeitschrift 7: 3-
fUrReligionswissenschaft,
23.
1999b Gitter,Miitter,Ahnenkult - NeolithischeReligionenin Anatolien,
Griechenland undDeutschland, Diss. Hannover(in press).
2000 "Der ethnographische Vergleichin derReligionswissenschaft."
Zeitschrift
fiir Missions-und Religionswissenschaft(in press).
Ziegler,Bernhard
1975Allgemeine
Paldontologie.
Stuttgart.

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:35:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions