Did we have Religious Belief as early as 30,000 BC???

I will present you with both arguments, taking it case by case, each piece of evidence one by one starting with the oldest. Then I will let you make your own opinion, voice that opinion in my poll, and then tell you what I think. You can make any comments you want afterwards.

This is a very large debate in an ever-growing sceptical world. There is not only a very limited amount of evidence, but as this is still prehistory, and there is no text, then it is entirely up to the Archaeologist's, or indeed anyone’s, interpretation of the evidence that we can draw conclusions from. This has led to many debates over countries and continents, between Archaeologists, Scientists and the everyday person. The main argument against us having religion is that we were far too underdeveloped, and that Archaeologists are looking at the 'evidence' and making to many jumps without a solid basis. The counter argument to this however, usually voiced by the qualified Archaeologists, is that the evidence really does support the idea that we had religion, and you just need to put it in context and use other examples world-wide to see that religion was upon us.

The very earliest piece of evidence we see for possible religion in the time of the Homo-Sapiens (we are now homo-SapienSapiens) is found in Germany, in a region of caves known as Hohle Fels. It was in these caves that they found a 35,000 year old carving. This 'Venus' figurine was carved out of a single piece of mammoth tusk and if anything it shows that we had developed abstract thought, as up until now all we had done was hunt and gather for food, drink, and then sleep in shelter, things vital to survival. This new advancement has led some to believe that Religious belief was not far off, and that maybe it even came hand in hand. This 'Venus' figurine, as you may see in the picture, has some over exaggerated features. Firstly its stomach and this has led some people to believe that this is a carving to help with fertility, that if they carved this that some higher power in which they believed would help them. The next features that are enhanced are the breasts and vulva. This has provided the counter argument to the exaggerated stomach in that it was just a male, possibly even female, just carving a figure of a woman for their own pleasure, other articles I have read have described it as the "Palaeolithic page 3". However, how then would we describe the lack of head, it seems to be replaced by a 'loop-hole' of sorts, and as we know that they could make string at this time then we can interpret this item as some sort of pendant, which in later cultures we know a high amount of jewellery was religious. Also to back the idea of religion was the discovery of two more items. Firstly a flute-like object made of mammoth tusk. Music to you and I may not seem like anything religious, but to people 35,000 years ago, music would have sounded exhilarating and exciting and beyond their imaginations. However, the final item found was another carving, this time of a human, but with a lion head. This is a lot like later cultures, where zoomorphology is used for religion, most obviously in cultures such as that of Ancient Egypt where most gods and goddesses had an animal linked to them. So is it possible we could have had religious belief as early as 30,000 years ago? Yes, from this evidence it seems so, and similar Venus figurines have been found around the world, however, people are still sceptical. So if we had no religion in 30,000 BC, when did we?

The answer would be, around 25,000 BC, but this argument has even more sceptics than the last one. The evidence for this argument that there was religious belief comes from France, in a cave called ChauvetCave. This is where the earliest example of cave paintings has been discovered. Hundreds of depictions, mainly of animals, but a few traces of hands, are found all over the walls here including 13 different species of animal, mostly predators, which first led to suspicions of it having some sort of religious meaning behind it. Most gods are depicted as strong beings, you rarely get a god who is depicted as a mouse, or a butterfly, or something fragile, which has led many people to think that this is a depiction of higher forces, or maybe even the human that is painting it wishing for the power and skill of this particular beast. It is not unheard of, even in some African and South-American tribes today we find people who feel they have a strong connection to animals, and they aspire to be exactly like that animal. The counter arguments for this are many though. The first one is simply that they painted what they saw, the area around them would have been full of these marvellous creatures, and why paint a fragile small creature when you could be painting a majestic lion. The next argument tends to be the strongest, and that is the argument that it depicts what to kill, and how to kill it, as n a lot of these pictures there are men with hunting equipment also. This is a widely accepted theory amongst sceptics as it shows how there is still meaning to the depictions, it’s just not religious. However, there are many other caves like Chauvet cave, to name a few they are La Cotte De St Brellade in Jersey, LascauxCave, also in France and a handful of other caves, mostly in Western Europe. Some of these lean more towards religion, as they have features such as the paintings being on the ceiling, and we must ask ourselves, why would someone go to al that trouble, just to paint a shopping list and how to get it? And if we still come out with the answer that there is no religion then we must move on.

Moving on rapidly now, it’s 9000 BC, the evidence between cave paintings and now are just a series of more caves and a few Venus figurines that I have already talked about. But in 9000 BC there was a lethal, but possibly religious contraption afoot. Homo-Sapiens used what is called an Atl-atl, or more commonly known, a spear-thrower, to kill their prey. One of these found in Stellmoor, Germany, was different though. It was in the shape of a mammoth. This is controversial, as we know today that weapons are decorated to show status, if their sword is shinier than yours then you know whose boss. But then there is the point I made in the previous section, about how people back then, as tribe’s people now, associate themselves with an animal in the belief that it will make them strong. In the belief. So this can be taken either way, and tends to be taken as a sign of status and power in itself rather than a religious connection to the animal. And so this ends the main evidence for religion in the Palaeolithic times, we start to move into the Neolithic in 6000BC est. next, when farming is introduced, and then, quite unanimously, Archaeologists, Scientists and people alike say there was religion. However, the starting point is still debatable, and I would now like to know when you think Religious Belief Started. If you are unsure of dates, just look back up through the article to see what came when.

Personally, I am convinced by the 'Venus' figurines alone. No person goes through hundreds of hours of slaving away at a piece of mammoth tusk just to get a glimpse at page 3. Also the stomach as well as the breasts and vulva are exaggerated, which is common with later fertility beliefs. This along with the flute which would have played on the minds of our Homo-Sapiens ancestors with its mesmerising music. And then Finally the Lion-headed statue seals the deal for me, zoomorphology has always had some link to religion, it is not normal to depict a person with a lion's head, unless you are trying to portray a belief in a higher power, who can control lions, or even give you the strength of one. And it is for these reasons that I am convinced.