sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cave bear, Mousterian

Cadernos Lab. Xeolóxico de Laxe ISSN: 0213-4497 Coruña. 2001. Vol. 26, pp. 457-463

Cave worship in the Palaeolithic Consideraciones sobre el culto al Oso de las Cavernas en el Paleolítico

WUNN, I.

AB S T R A C T

As a result of detailed discussion under different points of view, this study has neither endorsed evidence of any early belief system nor of bear worship. All relevant con- ceptions of that kind are either products of a certain mental climate at the time of the discovery of the fossils or of ideologies. The current hypothesis of the existence of an ancient bear cult is based partly on discoveries, but mainly on ethnographic analogies. Ho w e v e r , the discussion of religious customs among recent hunter-gatherers proves that what remains of the practise of their cult differs markedly from the fossil remains found in the Mousterian bear-. An examination of the fossil bone formations from a palaeontological point of view makes clear that supposed ancient bear cult sites are bone beds of natural origin. The characteristic appearance of the sites is a result of the activi- ties of the themselves and of geological and sedimentary processes. Conceptions of worship during the early and middle Palaeolithic period belong to the realm of legend.

Key words: Cave bear, worship, Palaeolithic University of Hannover. Seminar für Religionswissenschaft. Klingerstr. 1. D-30655 Hannover. GER- MANY 458 WUNN, I. CAD. LAB. XEOL. LAXE 26 (2001)

1. THE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND the Wildenmannlisloch in and in Slovenia’s Mornova Cave. In 1946 Up to now anthropologists have taken André Leroi-Gourhan excavated seven for granted that a bear cult, which is com- cave bear skulls arranged in a circle in mon in recent hunter-gatherer communi- Furtins Cave, Saône-et-Loire. In 1950 ties, was already practised during the mid- Kurt Ehrenberg secured a deposit of long dle Palaeolithic period. The opinion that bones arranged together with cave bear Palaeolithic man already had a complica- skulls in the Salzhofen Cave in the ted religion with certain apprehensions of Austrian (LASCU et al., 1996: 19- the holy and different rituals, can be found 20, MARINGER, 1956: 91 - 96). The in nearly every religious reference work. latest find of supposed traces of prehistoric FRITZ HARTMANN (1957: 403) writes cave bear worship was published in 1996. for example: "The magic of the hunt In the Rumanian Bihor- M o u n t a i n s belongs to this typically concep- Christian Lascu et al. discovered a cave tion of the world." rich in palaeontological cave bear deposits The concepts in the interpretation of (LASCU et al., 1996). Scholars such as the archaeological findings are based on Johannes Maringer or Å K E excavations in the caves of the Alps during H U LT K R A N T Z (1998) refer to the the first decades of the twentieth century, reports of the excavators, when they inter- where the remains of cave bears were pret the deposits as the remainder of cult detected. The excavators got the impres- practise. The historian Karl Narr also sion that the arrangement of the fossil gives an account of the deposits of cave bones could hardly be due to , so bear skulls and long bones, but remains they attributed this to the activities of sceptical (NARR, 1957: 10). Homo neanderthalensis who were assumed to have killed the and arranged their bones during certain ceremonies. In histo- 2. INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES OF rical and even recent times nearly every- Homo neanderthalensis where in the Arctic, primitive peoples The assumption that Homo neandertha - knew about rituals connected with the lensis practised the cult of the bear, is hunting of the bear (EDSMAN, 1957: based on several fundamental require- 841). The first excavators of the caves, ments. One of the presuppositions is that Emil Bächler and Karl Hörmann, took the intellectual abilities of H. neandertha - these ceremonies of circumpolar peoples lensis were sufficient to develop any reli- to prove their hypothesis of an ancient gion, and, as a consequence, that there are b e a r-cult in prehistoric times empirical facts proving the existence of a (MARINGER, 1956: 95ff). In the follo- symbol system in the Palaeolithic period. wing several discoveries of similar From an anthropological point of view, bear-caves seemed to support the hypothe- the European Middle Palaeolithic is cha- sis of cave bear worship. Emil Bächler racterised by Homo neanderthalensis himself discovered bear bone deposits at (HENKE & ROTHE, 1999: 272f). This CAD. LAB. XEOL. LAXE 26 (2001) Cave bear worship in the Palaeolithic 459 early representative of the genus Homo of fundamental difference between the lived over a period of nearly 100 000 mind of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens years, during which the landscape, clima- (HENKE & ROTHE, 1999: 275, te and living conditions changed dramati- REYNOLDS, 1990: 263 ff). Theoretically cally. These environmental changes might at least the late Homo neanderthalensis may have contributed to the special anatomical have been capable of developing a symbol features of man. Surely the system or thinking in abstract terms, need to adapt to a frequently changing which is essential for any religious habitat forced H. neanderthalensis to deve- thought. lop sociocultural abilities which were clo- sely related to the progressive evolution of 3. SUPPOSED TRACES OF RELI- intelligence and psychological abilities. GION The intellectual skills of Neanderthal man are, however, the source of heated debate. Just as the religion of Neanderthal As the British archaeologist and psycholo- man was regarded as irrefutable fact, there gist Steven Mithen emphasises, the was hardly any doubt that Homo neander - obvious lack of creativity is only due to thalensis subjected the heads of the decea- the meagre interaction between the diffe- sed to a special treatment and set them up rent domains of the mind. Cognitive flui- for ritual purposes. Other scholars are still dity only took place between the domains convinced that Neanderthal man hunted of social and linguistic intelligence fellow to kill and eat them (MITHEN 1996: 143 and 147ff). Other (ULLRICH, 1978: 293 ff, HENKE & authors share a different opinion. In gene- ROTHE, 1999: 277). It is said that the ral the lithic culture of Neanderthal man victims’ skulls later became the focal is the Mousterian, which is still simple point of a ritual. Latest investigations in compared to the of the upper archaeology prove that all finds of isolated Palaeolithic. On the other hand the lithic heads or jaws are the result of taphonomic cultures are not strictly related to the one processes (HENKE & ROTHE, 1999: 54- or the other human . Homo neander - 56). After a careful re-examination of the thalensis too was found together with the original reports of the excavations, technically more advanced and creative FABIENNE MAY (1986: 17 and 33-34) of the Upper Palaeolithic, and fossils states that none of the descriptions of the of Homo sapiens were found together with excavations is sufficient to confirm the the more plain tools of the Mousterian hypothesis of a ritual. Since it could be culture. Therefore direct relations betwe- shown that even the assumed skull depo- en a certain human species and its lithic sition of Monte Circeo was not the result culture cannot be proved. Technical skills of human activities, but the damage to the of the younger H. neanderthalensis and skull was rather due to the work of hungry early H. sapiens obviously did not differ. hyenas, the last argument in favour of a Those facts lead to the assumption that skull cult is disproved (HENKE & there is no palaeanthropological evidence ROTHE, 1994: 527). 460 WUNN, I. CAD. LAB. XEOL. LAXE 26 (2001)

Not only head-hunting, even ritual deserve that name. Only few places, e.g. cannibalism is imputed to Neanderthal La Chapelle-aux-Saints or Shanidar allow man. But the facts, on which the theory of us to assume that intentional funerals took prehistoric cannibalism are based, are place at all. It must seem natural, that usually poor. Frequently it was sufficient Neanderthal man knew feelings such as to assume cannibalism existed, if a skele- mourning, rage, despair and incredulity at ton was found incomplete or not in anato- the final loss of a beloved person. mical order (MARINGER, 1956: 81f). It Obviously those feelings induced is still considered as strong proof for can- Neanderthal man from time to time, to nibalism, when split human bones occur, handle the corpse of the deceased in an as they were excavated for example at affectionate way. This does not mean, that . However, due to the fact that the he had to believe in life after death or that excavators operated with dynamite, the he was capable of religious feelings. condition of the bones hardly allows any Especially the lack of any funeral rites pro- conclusions about the cause of death ves the absence of a certain common (PETER-RÖCHER, 1998: 41). Scratches belief. On the other hand those rare fune- on the bones, which were supposed to be rals can be a first hint of an initial feeling traces of stone tools, have not been exami- or hope, that there might be a certain ned with the help of a scanning electron form of existence even after death. microscope. Without such an examination the cause of the scratches cannot be detec- 4. BEAR-CULT ted at all. In the long run there is not a single point of reference which could As archaeological facts prove, the prove the theory of ritual cannibalism in current hypothesis of a fully-developed the Palaeolithic period. religion during the Middle Palaeolithic An intended funeral is considered a including cult-practice, funeral-rites and clear indication of conceptions of life after belief in an afterlife has to be refuted. death (HEILER, 1979: 516, WIßMANN, Only the assumption of early cave bear 1980: 730). Therefore reports of alleged worship supports the idea of religious cus- funerals always cause attention, even if toms originating in the Middle cautious archaeologists warn about overin- Palaeolithic up to now. Instead of suppor- terpreting badly documented excavations. ting the hypothesis of the magic of hun- The excavation reports seem to prove that ting, the most impressive arg u m e n t s the hunter of the Moustérien already against cave bear worship come from the believed in life after death. All documents bone deposits itself: Crucial biological of the excavations, which scholars of the objections are to be stated first of all. Both humanities used to prove their opinion of the cave bear ( spelaeus), which was funeral rites in the Palaeolithic period, extinct at the end of the last ice age, and were recently examined by FABIENNE the (Ursus arctos), which spre- MAY (1986: 11 - 35). She comes to the ad all over Eurasia since the Eem period, conclusions that not all so called funerals show a strong preference for cave accom- CAD. LAB. XEOL. LAXE 26 (2001) Cave bear worship in the Palaeolithic 461 modation. There they hide during winter- 45). But not only decomposition influen- time and give birth to their young. The ces the state of the bones. During their caves where the relics of alleged bear history the caves were flooded several worship were found are the natural habitat times, as the accumulated sediments of the animals, where they spend the long prove. Such floodings do not remain winters and hide their young. In those without influence on the fossil material. surroundings, the bears often died of natu- With high water levels and stronger ral causes, for example age, illness or lack currents all loose material is either rinsed of food. Therefore their bone fossils are away or carried for a certain distance and bound to be found in those places, if they then dropped at a place where there is a were not carried off by carrion eaters or weaker current. During these processes removed by sedimentological processes. the anatomical bone order is radically alte- The occurrence of cave bear bones in the red. Therefore the accumulation of several caves of the ice age, which served genera- skulls in one place and the absence of tions of bear families as shelter, is just other bones is due to geological and sedi- what a palaeontologist would expect. mentological processes and not to human The proponents of Palaeolithic bear intervention. The floating ability of sedi- worship did not only think the mere occu- ments can be reduced by prominent parts rrence of bear bones in the caves to be of the walls or unevenness of the floor, remarkable, but also their alleged assort- resulting in some bone parts being depo- ment and arrangement in which they were sited in the proximity of obstacles. A con- found. However, there first takes place an crete example of this effect is the discovery amassment of bear bones in certain places of several skulls deposited in a crosslike by the activities of the bears themselves. pattern in the Cold Cave of the Bihor The parts of skeletons of the deceased ani- Mountains. The obstacle, which reduced mals, which are originally in their anato- the transportability of the skulls crucially, mical order, are thrown into disarray or was a stone, at which the fossil skulls were scattered by later generations of bears. deposited (LASCU et al., 1996: 30 plate. Sometimes they are pressed to the walls, 3). Just as little as the assortment of the were they are relatively protected against bone material is proof of human activities, further decay (L E R O I - G O U R H A N, so the adjustment of the fossils is an unna- 1981: 39). Also the outweighing of skulls tural process. The movements of a trans- and long bones is a result of a process of port medium, be it wind, sediment or natural decay and not due to human acti- water, are transferred to the material to be vities. The mentioned parts of the skele- transported, so that the movement in a ton are relatively heavy and compact, so special direction leads to its assortment. that they are more able to resist decompo- Therefore the assortment of bear skulls is sition processes than the small vertebrae, not due to human activities, but to the ribs, foot-bones or hand-bones. A result of flowing water or other transport mediums those processes is the natural selection of in the caves. The bear caves show exactly the bone material (ZIEGLER, 1975: 44 - what a palaeontologist would expect. 462 WUNN, I. CAD. LAB. XEOL. LAXE 26 (2001)

Nothing suggests that the natural process the bear to help the deity to return. The of decay and sedimentation was at any dead bear is showered with gifts and trea- time interrupted or disturbed (WUNN, ted with honour. After the ceremonies the 1999, S. 6 ff). skull of the bear is put on a long stick, which is erected at the holy fence of the 5. THE ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALO- village. All Arctic people deal similar GUE with the remnants of the dead bear. Only the nomadic tribes of northern Even a detailed discussion of the finds carefully bury the skeleton of the killed of cave bear bones under an ethnographic game. All mentioned hunter- g a t h e r e r point of view leads to the same results communities are not restricted to the cult (WUNN, 1999: 3 - 23). The careful and of the bear, but also know about further critical use of ethnographic analogies, on rituals in connection to the hunt of other which the theories of a cave bear cult is dangerous and important animals. The founded in the end, just serves to prove Ainu for example have similar rituals for the non-existence of Palaeolithic cave bear the big of the Arctic sea, which worship. The East-Asian Ainu, the North- belong to their favourite game. In American Ojibwa, the nomadic tribes of Northern Europe complicated rites con- Northern Europe and other peoples living cerning reindeer are common. The in the Arctic region still know the magic American Indians’ knowledge covers of the hunt and especially the cult of the rituals concerning salmon, which is an bear. All those hunter-gatherer communi- important food supply. All those ethno- ties have a complicated religion with graphic examples force the following con- detailed ideas about gods and goddesses or clusion: the so-called master of the animals, an If H. neanderthalensis had known cave afterlife, the realm of the dead, or ghosts bear worship, its traces would have been and spirits. The cult of the bear is not the found inside the settlements. The remains only sign of the religiosity of Arctic peo- of such a cult would have been the bone ples, but is integrated into a complicated deposits of Neanderthal man’s favourite symbol system. The bear festival of the and most dangerous game, among which, Ainu for example starts with the capture however, the bear did not rank. Recent of a young bear, which is transported into peoples, who know the bear cult, catch or the village and carefully brought up by kill a bear in his winter accommodation the villagers. After a certain period the and bring it to their settlement. There it bear is slaughtered accompanied by com- is killed and eaten by the villagers under plicated rituals and ceremonies. different ritual regulations. The bones of According to Ainu belief the bear is a the dead game are put into a holy place or deity, which visits the realm of man for a are carefully buried near the village, but certain period. If the deity wants to travel never brought back again to the bear’s back into his own realm, he has to leave dwelling. his material body. Therefore the Ainu kill CAD. LAB. XEOL. LAXE 26 (2001) Cave bear worship in the Palaeolithic 463

REFERENCES LEROI-GOURHAN, A. (1981). Die Religionen der Vorgeschichte, Frankfurt/Main. EDSMAN, C.-M. (1957). Bärenfest, Die Religion in MARINGER, J. (1956). Vorgeschichtliche Religion, Geschichte und Gegenwart Bd. I, 3rd edition, eds. Zürich, Köln. Campenhausen, Hans Frh. von, Erich Dinkler, MAY, F. (1986). Les Sepultures Préhistoriques, Paris. Gerhard Gloege & Knut Logstrup, Tübingen, MITHEN, S. (1996). The of the Mind. The 841 pp. Cognitive Origins of Art and Science, London. H A RT M A N N, F. (1957). Anthropologie I, Die NARR, K. (1957). Deutschland in Ur- und frühges - Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd edition, chichtlicher Zeit, Konstanz. eds. Campenhausen, Hans Frh. von, Erich P E T E R - R Ö C H E R, H. (1998). M y t h o s Dinkler, Gerhard Gloege & Knut Logstrup Menschenfresser, München. Tübingen, 403 pp. R E Y N O L D S, T. (1990). The Middle-Upper HEILER, F. (1979). Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Palaeolithic Transition in Southwestern France: Religion, Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, Mainz. Interpreting the Lithic Evidence, The Emergence of HENKE, W. & HART M U T, R. (1994). Modern Humans, ed. Paul Mellars, Edinburgh, Paläoanthropologie, Heidelberg. pp. 262-302. HENKE W. & HART M U T, R. (1999). U L L R I C H, H. (1978). Kannibalismus und Stammesgeschichte des Menschen, Berlin and others. Leichenzerstückelung beim Neandertaler von HU LT K R A N T Z , Å. (1998). Arktische Religion, Krapina, Krapinski Pracovjek i Evolucija Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 4th edition Hominida, Zagreb, pp. 293-318. vol. 1, eds. Betz, Hans-Dieter, Don S. W I ß M A N N, H. (1980). Bestattung I. Browning, Bernd Janowski & Eberhard Jüngel, Religionsgeschichtlich, Theologische Tübingen, pp. 746-752. Realenzyklopädie Bd. 5, ed. Krause, Gerhard und LASCU, C.; FLORIAN, B.; MIHAI, G. & Gerhard Müller, Berlin, New York, 730 pp. SERBAN, S.(1996). A Mousterian Cave Bear WUNN, I. (1999). Bärenkult in urgeschichtlicher Worship Site in Transylvania, Roumania, Zeit. Zur religiösen Deutung mittelpaläolithis- Journal of , Jonsered, pp. 17- cher Bärenfossilien, Zeitschrift für 30. Religionswissenschaft, 7: 3-23.