# Talk:Prehistoric religion

Hello; Vaticidalprophet recently posted on my User Talk Page to ask if I would take a look at this article given my work on related topics elsewhere at Wikipedia. I'm not going to give a complete run-through, but I have some thoughts/comments that may prove useful to them (or others) working on this page.

Some of the wording is a not quite in Wikipedia's neutral style; "99% of human history is set in the Paleolithic alone, "sparse evidence exists for ritual practice as early as Homo naledi", "the rich and complex body of art", "the elaborate cave art and enigmatic Venus figurines". This style is quite common when trying to engage the reader but necessitates a lot of value judgements and is not really ideal for Wikipedia. Keep things really neutral.
I'd avoid "esoteric". Yes, it can mean hidden knowledge or something like that, but it also has a more specific meaning with reference to Western esotericism so its use here could prove misleading.
"an Australopithecus faith" - faith has strong associations with Protestantism specifically (and orthodoxies, rather than orthopraxies, more generally), so perhaps a term to avoid here.
"with many pagan faiths today" - it is typical to capitalise "Pagan" when talking about the new religions, and might be worth explicitly referring to them as "modern Pagan" to avoid confusion.
I think that the biggest issue here, and one that is very difficult go get around, is the sheer scope covered. This is both temporal, in terms of covering everything from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age, but also geographical. The article tends to focus mostly on the "Old World", with very little on the Americas or Australasia. Sometimes this can result in something of a Eurocentric or at least Old World-focused bias in the coverage; "One famous feature of Neolithic religion were the stone circles of the British Isles, of which the best known today is Stonehenge" in the lead, for instance. Stone circles are fascinating - but they only exist (at least from this period) in one very small corner of the globe.
I think that the article would need to acknowledge the difficulty coming to an agreed definition of "religion" among scholars, and how that has impacted archaeological interpretations of prehistoric belief and action. That could go in the "Background" section. Is "religion" a belief in supernatural entities? Or is it symbolic behaviour? Depending on which general definition is employed strongly, archaeological interpretations will vary and the reader needs to be aware of this.
I'm not a big fan of the citation style used here, but it is nevertheless certainly permitted at Wikipedia. However, the lack of specific page numbers for some of the citations is a major issue and would definitely be a barrier to it becoming an FA.
Hopefully some of these points may prove of use. Well done on all the hard work put into this article so far. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! :) Will keep in mind as I work on this. The geographic scope is definitely an obstacle I've been working with; it's a very difficult balance, and it shines through a bit that I know more about Europe in the Paleolithic and East Asia in the Neolithic respectively than elsewhere. The point on the difficulty of defining religion is very valid and something I've been writing with in mind, but not always showing properly. I think all the cites do specify page numbers, although in some of those cases (significantly with Against the Grain) I'm unconvinced of the page numbers being accurate and am seeking another copy of the book to double-check. All in all, good comments, thank you. Vaticidalprophet 13:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, this is a minor thing, but by definition " 99% of human history" did not occur during "prehistory." Historical periods are intentionally separated from prehistorical, and while in a casual context the word "history" is often used to encompass the entire duration of a thing's existence, I don't think we should use it in that way in this article. LeperColony (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this really is appropriate on this page, but I just wanted to say thank you for this article. As a "general reader" who was interested in the origins of religion, I found the current version of the article to be enlightening. The prose was well written and flowed easily. In particular, I liked the way the article presented divergent viewpoints among scholars. I see there is some discussion here about the credibility of the sources, and a few critical points as to the precision of the claims. I have no possibility to judge any of these criticisms. To me, this article embodied what Wikipedia should be all about. To be able to find such a thorough article that is accessible both in the style of writing and accessible as in free to access is a thing of wonder. Thank you to everyone who has contributed here. KaldeFakta68 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The present page refers to heavy influence by "both European and Khoisan cultures" in the "Bronze and Iron Ages" section. Given the stark distance between the Maghreb and the area of Khoi-san cultural influence in southern Africa, this description appears suspect (although I admit I am unable to access the cited source to compare). The general tone of this section also appears somewhat suspect to me, including the use of the unique term "Maghrebinians" and the speculative mention of a "pan-European weapon cult". 
For these reasons, I would like to bring attention to this section in case it warrants further discussion or investigation. 73.169.71.205 (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Early European Religion(s) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 4 § Early European Religion(s) until a consensus is reached.  Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)