Paleolithic Art and Religion

This chapter gives the reader a very general view of prehistoric religion and a few different theories behind the study of said religion. Jean Clottes and David Lewis-Williams, the authors, immediately set about defining the terms 'ur-religion' and 'prehistory' before delving into the materiel. They define ur-religion as "the hypothetical 'original' religion and prehistory as the time since the origin of humankind (but also including 'pre-human' hominids such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Prehistoric culture and art are also covered in the first half of the chapter. After spending a large amount of time discussing prehistory Clottes and Lewis-Williams began to relate it to religion. The chapter proceeds to offer an array of corresponding theories from over the years. Clottes and Lewis-Williams focus mainly on giving the reader an educational introduction to the study of prehistoric religion and thus all of theories introduced are not really full explanations, just concise definitions.

This article spends a lot of time theorizing about prehistoric humankind's way of life and is very careful to not make any concrete claims. In fact, the entire chapter reads more like a discussion than an informative essay. This was both interesting and frustrating. The broad-minded view the reader is given is obviously necessary when dealing with prehistoric research (since so little information is really known for sure) but the reader feels rather empty-handed at the end of the reading. A lot of information is offered but no overarching claims are made, which is the point of the article in a sense. Clottes and Lewis-Williams are making sure the reader understands how difficult studying prehistoric culture is due to the passage of time and lack of recorded history. The reader knows that she will appreciate the broad scope in the future and that, at least, is reassurring.

I was very interested in the section called Art for Art's Sake. I found it very curious that the majority of researchers from the beginning of the twentieth century onward automatically accept the idea that prehistoric cultures would not have spent so much time adorning the deep inner recesses of caves without some sort of religious or ceremonial intent. Although I am sure there have been a lot of studies that contribute to this acceptance they are not thoroughly discussed in this article. And so, I am left wondering why, why MUST cave art be undeniably connected to religion/ceremony?

Other than that small note I am left pretty much speechless after this read. I mean, I would have an opinion but it sounds too dangerous to develop so quickly...