Miscellaneous desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 18[edit]

Origins of religion and the hunting hypothesis[edit]

I am not as familiar with paleoanthropology, as I should be, but I keep running into discussions about the evolution and origin of religion and the hunting hypothesis in the literature, going back about 80 years. This has me very curious. Is this still considered a viable hypothesis? Our article on the hunting hypothesis asserts that it is, saying, "advocates of the hunting hypothesis tend to believe that tool use and toolmaking essential to effective hunting were an extremely important part of human evolution, and trace the origin of language and religion to a hunting context." Our article reads as if it might be a touch outdated, so I'm curious as to the current state of the research paradigm in 2024. It seems to connect a lot of the missing dots, but that has me a touch skeptical, as it could be too good to be true. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: more recent commentary in the book article The Hunting Hypothesis argues that it is now the accepted hypothesis, but to support this idea it cites a popular magazine article from 2014. I would appreciate some clarity on this. More specifically, is there good evidence that religion arose out of hunting culture? It is interesting to note that in the ethnology literature, there is a larger pattern of religious traditions and practices focusing on the success of the hunt, how to find the animals, etc, particularly in Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, and elsewhere. I assume this is also true for North America. I ran across an older, interesting quote from Frederic Spiegelberg circa 1948 that expands upon this idea. Spiegelberg writes about older Buddhist iconography discussed by Suzuki (presumably from ancient China and Japan?) that focuses on the use of hunting and cowherding imagery as a metaphor for Buddhist practice. Spiegelberg goes on to connect all the major religious traditions to hunting. One small quote from 1948 stands out: "So we might presume that of the three types of early mankind which the anthropologists have discovered—hunter, farmer and herdsman—the hunter was the first and decisive one to supply the material for religious ideas, while the "cult" (agriculture) and the "pastor" (herdsman) probably entered the religious field much later. The hunter cannot think about the basic reality behind or within this ordinary so-called reality in other terms but in his hunter's terms, and he calls it a deer. Later, the farmer calls it the spirit of the crops and of fertility, and thus this basic principle takes up the shape of the prevailing ideas within any group of mankind. The Ancients used to call that the metamorphoses of their gods. And Aristotle gives the philosophical explanation for this fact by saying 'Whatsoever is received comes to him that receives it after the manner of the recipient?' The picture of the hunter's trail and of the traces we must look for, is surprisingly widespread and famous throughout the history of religions." Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without direct evidence, it's possible to create all sorts of plausible hypotheses. Hunting was certainly an important and probably ubiquitous factor in human development, and religion seems similarly ubiquitous, but hunting was not the only thing going on, and correlation does not prove causation.

It would seem to me that early human attempts to understand how the World works would embrace other factors, such as the Sun, Moon and stars, weather, seasons, plant growth, etc. The earliest forms of religion I have casually read of do not seem to be particularly hunting based, though they include it as elements, and certainly the origins of religion lie earlier than any evidence we have, or probably can have. It's been suggested (though it's a stretch) that even chimpanzees may have glimmerings of 'religious' ideas.

What, at its simplest, is religion anyway (see Theories about religion for a variety of ideas, in which hunting is only referred to once, and Evolutionary origin of religion). In the classical world it was not usually thought of as a separate topic – it was just assumed that gods were part of the world, and 'religion' was a label you might apply to the things you did in regard to that, not essentially different to the things you did to craft something, or grow something, etc. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion implies religious leaders, people who have the spare time to think about abstracts, and the charisma to convince other people to feed them while they do it. (The same is true of government, but much later.) Hence, the rise in food availability associated with hunting (vs. gathering) might well create that surplus. So sad. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? There's plenty of time for woolgathering while woolgathering. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropologists of religion classify animism, a belief system in which not only humans but also animals, plants, rivers and mountains have a spiritual essence of their own, as a form of religion. But it is not organized religion; it does not require leaders or philosophers. --Lambiam 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not require them, but Shintoism, which is certainly animist, does to some extent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even still, DOR’s point about abstract thought is super interesting. Philosopher Richard Kover at the University of Alberta talks about this: "Even more importantly the hunter needs to be able to actively inhabit the subjective awareness of the prey, to perceive the world almost viscerally through its eyes and ears. Hunting, the poet and environmental philosopher Gary Snyder notes, requires that one “use (one’s) body and senses to the fullest”; it also entails between the hunter and hunted an inter-subjective dimension whereby one “strains (one’s) consciousness to feel what the deer is thinking today at this moment” (Snyder, 1969: 120). This ability comes in useful not only as the hunter tracks the prey over great distances but particularly when he is closing in on the quarry and must come well within the sensory defenses of the prey. To come even close to taking a shot, the hunters must exercise the utmost stealth, caution, and keen attention to the behavioural nuances of the prey, continually asking themselves, “Has the prey caught sight of them or smelled their scent? Did it hear the slightest rustle of grass as the hunter crept forward?” Consequently, successful hunting, far from requiring the hunter to violently hate, or forgo all thoughts of empathy with the prey, requires exactly the opposite: the hunter must respect the prey and constantly imagine the subjective state of their quarry, attempting to quite literally perceive the situation through its senses. Little wonder then that hunter-gatherer cultures place such emphasis on “thinking like the prey” or that the myths and discursive forms of reasoning of foragers accord such high esteem and respect to other animals, particularly the prey, as the very taskscape of technologically primitive hunting demands not only a profound sense of humility and respect towards the prey but also the ability to subjectively identify with it." Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is such profoundly humble inhabitance of the subjective awareness of the prey also demanded of hunting wolf packs? If not, how come they manage to do without while it is demanded of hunter-gatherer humans? --Lambiam 07:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves are physically easily able to chase and catch prey, while humans have to rely more on guile, requiring more of their intellectual faculties.

That said, we have little idea of what the consciousness of a wolf is like, though we do know that they are markedly more intelligent than (nearly all) domestic dogs, whose comparative friendliness to humans and lesser intelligence than their wolf ancestors is in large part because of two mutations in the Melanocortin 2 gene and widespread possession of the genetic condition of Williams syndrome that causes similar characteristics in humans.

Perhaps wolves, too, have introspective understanding of their prey and concepts that, were we to know of them, we would recognise as 'religious'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps wolves even have organized religion, like organized adulation to the Moon goddess Lupa – adulation being a portmanteau of adoration and ululation; we do not recognize it only because we have no idea what it is like to be a wolf. But if we cannot say, with any degree of certainty, that subjective awareness of the prey is demanded of hunting wolves, I consider the claim that it is demanded of another species as philosophers' speculation, an interesting idea, perhaps, but hardly qualifying as a candidate explanation of the origin of religion.

The physiological advantages hunting wolves have over humans are not across the board. Wolves can move fast, but most prey animals can move faster. If the prey manages to escape the closing encirclement, wolves usually have to give up the pursuit pretty soon. On the short distance, humans are much slower than wolves, but trained human hunters have a high long-distance endurance. By persisting in their pursuit, they will eventually catch the exhausted prey. --Lambiam 19:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the two skill-sets are complimentary, perhaps why humans and woves/dogs became mutualistic so early. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read about paleoanthropology, wolves are entirely limited by their quadraped physiology. My understanding is that bipedalism led to humans being successful hunters, the development of speech and language, and later religion. Wolves can't do this, because according to Jeremy DaSilva, "animals that walk on two feet have finer control of their breathing, and that gives them the flexibility to make a great range of sounds". "Bipedalism likely gave Australopithecus the fine-controlled breathing required to make a larger range of sounds than a chimpanzee can make, and it freed their hands to communicate with gestures." In other words, according to Nicholas Wade, "religion, at least in its modern form, cannot pre-date the emergence of language." I don't see how wolves can reflect on abstract ideas without language. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language, despite its etymological root, need not be vocal. Anyone familiar with dogs can understand a good deal of their expressions (some evolved to interact with humans) and body language, and dogs reflect a similar understanding of humans. The level of understanding between wolves must be considerably greater. In any case, wolves (and dogs) in fact do communicate with sounds to a degree, and probably to a far greater degree and quality than we have yet discovered, as hinted by our (so-far limited) progress on understanding elephants and dolphins. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bipedalism didn't immediately make humans good persistence hunters. Australopithecus afarensis was bipedal, but did not yet have an efficient, modern gait. Homo erectus walked more efficiently. Bipedalism did immediately free up the hands to carry tools, including ranged weapons.

A long-distance chase is, for humans, a fairly good hunting strategy in open terrain, as humans have good endurance. In open terrain, traps don't work very well, as there are no preferred paths to put a trap on, making it unlikely an animal would walk into one randomly. Baited traps work better, but only against carnivores, which don't make a good primary source of food. Ambushes don't work in a terrain where humans can't hide in the vegetation.

In woodland, in particular if the soil doesn't allow for good footprints, on the other hand, persistence hunting doesn't work so well for humans, as the prey can easily get out of sight. Without a well-developed sense of smell, humans would have to break off the pursuit. A mutualistic relationship with another animal may help and requires the companion to have good endurance too (else they couldn't stay together), better tracking abilities (as that's the human's weakness) and poorer abilities to kill (else there would be no benefit for the companion). Birds seem ideal and in fact, even wolves are reported to coöperate with ravens. In such terrain traps and ambushes work best, and in contrast to most ambush hunters, that need a short sprint and nasty teeth or claws, humans can use ranged weapons, so they need no sprint and can take on well-armed prey. In contrast to persistence hunts, advanced ambushes and traps depend also on the human's mental abilities.

I don't see how religion, a system of non-falsifiable ideas with no predictive value, may help in a hunt. However, I recognise the possibility that the tendency of many human beings to maintain such ideas may be a side effect of something that is beneficial in a hunt. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion is used by many hunting cultures to predict where the animals may be successfully found. While there’s no evidence that this system actually works in reality, it looks like it gave hunters the psychological strength and resolve to do what needed to be done, perhaps an early form of "faith". Although I’m not certain, it looks like this kind of proto-religion is also used to "communicate" with or to placate the so-called spirits of the animals so as to form some kind of extended familial relationship. From this, it looks like the idea of a divine pantheon first emerged. Viriditas (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your final sentence appears to be a leap of faith, for which I would want to see some supporting evidence. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. See Master of Animals as one of dozens of examples. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article certainly details many interesting examples of animal themes that appear as elements in ancient religions and pantheons near (on both sides of) the beginnings of recorded history, but not that such themes were the origin of all religious thoughts and of supernatural pantheons, which must lie much deeper in time; not so? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but there's a new book called The History and Environmental Impacts of Hunting Deities that provides case studies. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]