MSTKL
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by MSTKL on Mar 7, 2009 21:37:20 GMT -5
Recently I was talking with a friend about religion and she claimed Neanderthals practiced a religion. I asked her how we would know this if there were no written records, but she had to leave very soon afterward, and never had a chance to answer me. The best she could do was say 'Last I knew, yes. I read it somewhere.' This immediately made me even more skeptical.
Other than a seemingly ritualized burial, what proof do we have? None, as far as I can tell. Even ritualized burial could be explained as a method of respecting the person. I'm sure that even a purely atheistic society would have methods of disposing of the dead.
As far as I can tell Neanderthal religion is largely unknowable.
P.S. - I put this here because I could think of a better place.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Mar 7, 2009 23:08:58 GMT -5
Even if it were discovered that they did have religion, what would that prove other than they had no other way of explaining things than the ones who later learned to write down that "Goddidit"?.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 7, 2009 23:30:43 GMT -5
From what I understand, the burial rituals of Neanderthals were similar/identical to their contemporary Sapiens counterparts, ie buried, with personal items, ceremonial items and so on. Even the cave paintings point to a religious belief. As to what it was, I really don't know, but the burials, placing of items and so on points in that direction.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 8, 2009 1:17:13 GMT -5
If they did it would be something very animalistic. Dancing to the bear god for a good hunt. I can't see anything beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 8, 2009 6:03:59 GMT -5
From what I understand, the burial rituals of Neanderthals were similar/identical to their contemporary Sapiens counterparts, ie buried, with personal items, ceremonial items and so on. Even the cave paintings point to a religious belief. As to what it was, I really don't know, but the burials, placing of items and so on points in that direction. This is actually, not entirely true. I love Homo neanderthalensis, but it doesn't do anyone justice to give them more credit than we know they deserve based upon evidence. There is very little evidence that Neanderthals practised some form of organised ritual behaviour. Off the top of my head I can think of two finds, both rather striking, but possibly misleading. 1) Shanidar cave, and very old male was found buried with a fair amount of pollen in the burial site. Now, this could either mean that flowered were placed in the grave (as the original authors suggested) or, it could mean pollen was carried in sediments or water. The latter cannot be ruled out based on the difficult location of the burial where such circumstances are possible. 2) Sites were dead Neanderthals were buried with red ochre. I would feel uncomfortable doing any speculation, so what we know from these burials is this: Neanderthals had the ability to locate and process ochre and place it on dead bodies. 3) Neanderthals never made cave paintings (neither did their H. sapien contemporaries for the most part--confidence intervals of undesirable size make it really difficult to place and exact dates). Nor did they make elaborate carvings like the famous 'venus' figurines or anthropomorphic cat figurines. 4) Cannibalism or ritual defleshing. Personally this wasn't my favourite part of Neanderthal science so I do not know as much as I should. For a long time it was thought Neanderthals were forced into cannibalism in the same sorts of circumstances we are (no food, terrible environmental conditions, et cetera); and this is considered a trait of heightened development. At any rate, better techniques reveal to us that these sites are not as uniform as we once thought. Krapina for example, is thought to be a site of ritual defleshing and modern microwear studies suggest the body was defleshed after it had started to decompose. It is in my opinion that these bits of evidence are not nearly enough to suggest that Neanderthals had religion; and that such suggestions are cases of extreme speculation. Speculation and analogy are wonderful tools, but I do not think the assumptions they are based on, in general, are fair in the case of Neanderthals. They were a different species, existing over 30,000 years ago--human analogy just seems a bit dodgy to me in this case. But please, don't take my word for it. I reccomend the following authors to anyone interested in Neandethals Ian Tattersal Jeffrey Schwartz Juan Luis Arsuaga Gary Sawyer And this is a great National Geographic site dedicated to the reconstruction of a Neanderthal individual based on some modern (2007 if I recall correctly) evidence. ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/neanderthals/hall-textIf anyone wants to read any journal articles, may I suggest PNAS ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/neanderthals/hall-textI will eagerly retrieve articles for those who don't have free access to scientific journals as well. Neanderthals are incredibly interesting, so I'll share the love!
|
|
Dan
Full Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by Dan on Mar 8, 2009 9:10:34 GMT -5
2) Sites were dead Neanderthals were buried with red ochre. I would feel uncomfortable doing any speculation, so what we know from these burials is this: Neanderthals had the ability to locate and process ochre and place it on dead bodies. It also means that they had (or believed that they had) motivation to do so. It's true that we can only speculate what that motive might have been, but the inference that they had some reason for using ochre is logically sound.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 8, 2009 9:47:22 GMT -5
From what I understand, the burial rituals of Neanderthals were similar/identical to their contemporary Sapiens counterparts, ie buried, with personal items, ceremonial items and so on. Even the cave paintings point to a religious belief. As to what it was, I really don't know, but the burials, placing of items and so on points in that direction. This is actually, not entirely true. I love Homo neanderthalensis, but it doesn't do anyone justice to give them more credit than we know they deserve based upon evidence. There is very little evidence that Neanderthals practised some form of organised ritual behaviour. Off the top of my head I can think of two finds, both rather striking, but possibly misleading. 1) Shanidar cave, and very old male was found buried with a fair amount of pollen in the burial site. Now, this could either mean that flowered were placed in the grave (as the original authors suggested) or, it could mean pollen was carried in sediments or water. The latter cannot be ruled out based on the difficult location of the burial where such circumstances are possible. 2) Sites were dead Neanderthals were buried with red ochre. I would feel uncomfortable doing any speculation, so what we know from these burials is this: Neanderthals had the ability to locate and process ochre and place it on dead bodies. 3) Neanderthals never made cave paintings (neither did their H. sapien contemporaries for the most part--confidence intervals of undesirable size make it really difficult to place and exact dates). Nor did they make elaborate carvings like the famous 'venus' figurines or anthropomorphic cat figurines. 4) Cannibalism or ritual defleshing. Personally this wasn't my favourite part of Neanderthal science so I do not know as much as I should. For a long time it was thought Neanderthals were forced into cannibalism in the same sorts of circumstances we are (no food, terrible environmental conditions, et cetera); and this is considered a trait of heightened development. At any rate, better techniques reveal to us that these sites are not as uniform as we once thought. Krapina for example, is thought to be a site of ritual defleshing and modern microwear studies suggest the body was defleshed after it had started to decompose. It is in my opinion that these bits of evidence are not nearly enough to suggest that Neanderthals had religion; and that such suggestions are cases of extreme speculation. Speculation and analogy are wonderful tools, but I do not think the assumptions they are based on, in general, are fair in the case of Neanderthals. They were a different species, existing over 30,000 years ago--human analogy just seems a bit dodgy to me in this case. But please, don't take my word for it. I reccomend the following authors to anyone interested in Neandethals Ian Tattersal Jeffrey Schwartz Juan Luis Arsuaga Gary Sawyer And this is a great National Geographic site dedicated to the reconstruction of a Neanderthal individual based on some modern (2007 if I recall correctly) evidence. ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/neanderthals/hall-textIf anyone wants to read any journal articles, may I suggest PNAS ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/neanderthals/hall-textI will eagerly retrieve articles for those who don't have free access to scientific journals as well. Neanderthals are incredibly interesting, so I'll share the love! Thanks, DD, for the insight. I will admit that my understanding of Neanderthals is limited to a few articles in "Science" and "Skeptic" magazines, along with a few documentaries from the Discovery channels. I appreciate the links.
|
|
MSTKL
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by MSTKL on Mar 8, 2009 15:59:55 GMT -5
If they did it would be something very animalistic. Dancing to the bear god for a good hunt. I can't see anything beyond that. Thats what I was thinking. There wasn't enough civilization around for a complex religion.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Mar 8, 2009 17:32:32 GMT -5
Their religion -- if, indeed, they had one -- would have been rudimentary at best. It would have grown more sophisticated if a couple of sharpies designated themselves "pastors" and began spouting bullshit.
|
|
MSTKL
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by MSTKL on Mar 8, 2009 19:59:52 GMT -5
Their religion -- if, indeed, they had one -- would have been rudimentary at best. It would have grown more sophisticated if a couple of sharpies designated themselves "pastors" and began spouting bullshit. I bet that's what happened. Look at where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 8, 2009 21:05:07 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me if Neanderthal man had some form of rudimentary, shamanistic or animalistic religion. I remember reading within the last couple of years or so that that Neanderthals could speak, so they're not the stereotypical "grunting caveman" that most people seem to picture when they think of 'Neanderthal'. But I think it's safer to say it would've been more of a belief than an actual, proper, organized religion.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Wolfhowl on Mar 8, 2009 21:57:57 GMT -5
If you've read the Hominids book series, you'd know that Neanderthals are atheists and have personal computers embedded in their forearms.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 3:57:41 GMT -5
2) Sites were dead Neanderthals were buried with red ochre. I would feel uncomfortable doing any speculation, so what we know from these burials is this: Neanderthals had the ability to locate and process ochre and place it on dead bodies. It also means that they had (or believed that they had) motivation to do so. Obviously if someone did something, there was probably a reason for it. that being said, so what? They probably had a reason for hunting certain ways or living in certain places. That in no way, shape or form indicates or even implies a religion of any sort. It's true that we can only speculate what that motive might have been, but the inference that they had some reason for using ochre is logically sound. "Some reason" still doesn't mean or indicate a bloody thing. Cuckoo birds have a "reason" for laying eggs in other birds' nests, that sure doesn't mean they have/had religion!
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Mar 9, 2009 4:26:49 GMT -5
As a point of personal interest, why am I not yelling at all of you for putting an 'h' in there?
Ok, you can't actually answer that question, but you might be able to answer this one: Neandertal or Neanderthal? No, I will not defer to the red squiggly line that appeared under one of those words in my Chrome, because I have proven several times today that Chrome's spell checker does not always know what it is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 5:32:11 GMT -5
As a point of personal interest, why am I not yelling at all of you for putting an 'h' in there? Ok, you can't actually answer that question, but you might be able to answer this one: Neandertal or Neanderthal? No, I will not defer to the red squiggly line that appeared under one of those words in my Chrome, because I have proven several times today that Chrome's spell checker does not always know what it is talking about. OOOO! OOOO! I know it, I know it! I know it because I said it wrong most of my life.
|
|