Lars Fogelin.pdf

ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6

The Archaeologyof Religious RitualLars FogelinDepartment of Anthropology and Sociology, Albion College, Albion, Michigan 49224;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007. 36:55–71

First published online as a Review in Advance onApril 24, 2007

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094425

Copyright c© 2007 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0084-6570/07/1021-0055$20.00

Key Words

structure, practice, power, symbolism

AbstractArchaeologists traditionally assumed that rituals were understoodbest in light of religious doctrines, beliefs, and myths. Given thematerial focus of archaeology, archaeologists believed that ritual wasa particularly unsuitable area for archaeological inquiry. In the past25 years, archaeologists have increasingly started to address ritual intheir research. Some archaeologists with access to extensive histori-cal or ethnohistorical sources continue to see rituals as the enactmentof religious principles or myths. Other archaeologists have adopteda more practice-oriented understanding of ritual, arguing that ritualis a form of human action. In emphasizing ritual practice, archaeol-ogists reject a clear dichotomy between religious and nonreligiousaction or artifacts, focusing instead on the ways that the experienceof ritual and ritual symbolism promotes social orders and dominantideologies.

55

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


INTRODUCTION

Archaeologists studying religion often focuson ritual. The reason for this focus is straight-forward. There is a widespread archaeologicalunderstanding that ritual is a form of humanaction that leaves material traces, whereas re-ligion is a more abstract symbolic system con-sisting of beliefs, myths, and doctrines. Thiscommon understanding does not mean, how-ever, that all archaeologists approach the studyof ritual in the same way. Although many agreethat ritual is a form of action or behavior, sig-nificant differences can be found in how ar-chaeologists conceive of the relationship be-tween religion and ritual. Some archaeologistssee religion as primary, with ritual enactingunderlying religious beliefs. Others see ritualas primary. Here the symbolic meanings of rit-uals are downplayed; rather the specifics of re-ligious belief conform to rituals that lie at theheart of things. In both cases, archaeologistscreate a simple dichotomy between religionand ritual, belief and action. As such, the now-standard anthropological debates concerningstructure and agency are front and center inthe study of ancient ritual and religion (Barrett2001, Dobres & Robb 2000). Whichever per-spective archaeologists employ, most recog-nize that a dialectic exists between ritual andreligion; aspects of one are necessarily relatedto aspects of the other. Ritual elements can beused to infer belief systems, just as knowledgeof the mythology of a particular society canbe used to investigate its rituals.

Generally an orientation toward eitherstructure or practice guides archaeologists’thinking about ritual. For the most part, ar-chaeologists who emphasize the structural el-ements of religion focus on the symbolic as-pects of ritual, often by using historical orethnohistorical sources. In contrast, those ar-chaeologists who emphasize ritual practicein their analyses tend to focus on the waysthat material remains can inform on the ac-tions and experiences of past ritual partici-pants. That said, archaeological materials re-lating to religion and ritual are fragmentary.

Some archaeologists who have only materialremains to investigate ritual still employ struc-tural assumptions concerning the primacy ofmyth and belief, whereas others who examinemythology or ethnohistory are also enthusi-astic advocates of the ritual primacy over re-ligion. Each of these different permutationsof archaeological research on ritual has dif-ferent interpretive strengths and weaknesses;each is discussed below. First, however, it isimportant to examine the foundational con-cepts in which archaeologists rely in theiranalyses. In studying ancient ritual, archaeol-ogists have appropriated many of their foun-dational understandings from cultural anthro-pology, religious studies, and sociology. In theprocess, archaeologists have been forced todevelop material implications from what are,for the most part, more intangible theoreticalperspectives.

RITUAL AND RELIGION:THEORIES AND DEFINITIONS

In the nineteenth and early twentieth cen-turies an academic debate formed within re-ligious studies over the primacy of religionor ritual. Whereas some argued for the his-torical primacy of ritual (Frazer 1955[1911],Robertson Smith 1969[1889]), others ar-gued that myths preceded rituals (Muller1967[1861]). For the most part, these debatesrested on fanciful reconstructions of the dis-tant past, with theoretical positions determin-ing historical narratives. Archaeological datawere kept out of it, and few archaeologiststook up the challenge of sorting out the ori-gins of religion and ritual (but see Mithen1998, Tattersall 1998). Over time, religion andritual have come to be understood in moredialectical terms, with historical primacy nolonger serving as a proxy for importance (seeKluckhohn 1942). However, the old debatesover myth and ritual serve to illustrate a cen-tral divide in the study of religion and ritualthat exists to this day. Although no seriousscholar in any discipline argues that ritual or

56 Fogelin

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


religion is completely determinative of theother, different scholars tend to emphasizeone over the other. These differences in em-phasis lead to important differences in ap-proaching the study of religion and ritual.

Religion

Geertz (1973), from a structural perspective,argued that

[r]eligion is a system of symbols which actsto establish powerful, pervasive, and longlasting moods and motivations in men byformulating conceptions of a general orderof existence and clothing these conceptionswith such an aura of factuality that the moodsand motivations seem uniquely realistic.(p. 90)

The emphasis here lies on belief and themeaning of symbols—the manner in whichbelief serves to instill in people a sense ofwhere they belong in the universe. Rituals,in this conception, serve to enact or promotesymbolic meanings in a format that can be eas-ily understood by the masses. As phrased byWallace (1966, p. 102), “ritual is religion inaction; it is the cutting edge of the tool . . . Itis ritual that accomplishes what religion setsout to do.” In this formulation, ritual is a formof human action determined or shaped by un-derlying religious views.

Of particular importance to a structural-ist perspective is the idea that religion is aparticularly stable and long-lasting culturalphenomenon. If religion is a relatively sta-ble phenomenon and ritual is the enactmentof religious principles, then rituals must alsobe relatively stable over time. Thus, ritualsare a particularly anachronistic element of hu-man societies (Bloch 1977, 1986; Connerton1989). Just as many Christians continue touse the King James Bible, many societies con-tinue to engage in rituals that employ archaicspeech or actions. This is perhaps best illus-trated in Bloch’s (1986) classic discussions ofboys’ circumcision ritual among the Merina

in Madagascar. Bloch demonstrates that thecontent and form of the ritual has been un-changed for almost two centuries, despite itsshift from a small-scale village puberty rite toa large-scale ritual central to Merina identity.

Because religion is a particularly stable so-cial phenomenon, it can also be used as ameans of retaining valuable social informationover the long term. It is this property of rit-ual upon which cultural materialists (Harris1977; Lansing 1991; Rappaport 1968, 1979)and their archaeological progeny (Cove 1978,Minc 1986, Sobel & Bettles 2000; see alsoScarborough 1998) seized in their analyses.For example, Sobel & Bettles (2000) arguedthat methods for coping with winter foodshortages are contained within ritual recita-tions of Klamath and Modoc myths of thenorthwest coast of North America. Rituallyrecited oral histories and folktales preservesurvival strategies so that younger generationscan employ them when famine strikes. Thedanger in encoding environmental informa-tion in oral traditions is that myths can be-come corrupted through repeated retelling.Thus, mechanisms must be developed thatpreserve the integrity of ritual storytelling.Sobel & Bettles discuss elaborate strategiesthat the Klamath and Modoc employ to makesure that their myths do not change over time.Ritual recitations of famine myths are per-formed only in winter (when the potential forhunger is immediately present), three peoplewho know the story must be present at therecitation to check for accuracy, and childrenare not allowed to recite the stories. These rit-ual proscriptions serve to keep the content ofthe myths intact over multiple generations.

The anachronistic and invariant elementsof ritual fit well within archaeological ap-proaches to ritual that employ historical andethnohistorical sources. If religion is amongthe most stable and long-lasting cultural phe-nomena, then ethnographic, ethnohistoric,and historic accounts—even those that post-date the archaeological period being studiedby several centuries—are a legitimate sourcefor the study of ancient religious practices.

www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Religious Ritual 57

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Furthermore, given the richness of the sym-bolic, mythic, and doctrinal information avail-able in these sources, it is not surprising thatarchaeologists who have a more structural un-derstanding of religion tend to focus on thesesources. Given the difficulty of determiningthe meaning of symbols in purely prehistoriccontexts (Fogelin 2007, Hayes 1993), assum-ing stability of religion over the long term isa convenient research strategy. Recent trendsin the anthropology of religion, however, havequestioned these more simple formulations ofhistorical memory.

Ritual

Some anthropologists and religious histori-ans advocate for the primacy of ritual practicein the dialectic with religion. These scholarsemphasize the creative or revolutionary as-pects of ritual. Rituals are not seen as pre-serving or enacting stable sets of religiousbeliefs, but rather rituals construct, create,or modify religious beliefs (Bell 1992, 1997;Humphrey & Laidlaw 1994). People con-stantly choose to remember, forget, or recre-ate elements of their religion through rit-ual practices (Connerton 1989, Hobsbawm& Ranger 1983). In archaeology this per-spective has been employed in the worksof Bradley (1991, 2002, Bradley & Williams1998), Rowlands (1993), and others (Chesson2001, Jonker 1995, Meskell 2002, Pauketat2001, Van Dyke & Alcock 2003). Althoughspecific rituals may remain the same over longperiods of time, their meaning for societyis constantly recontextualized. People trans-form and change underlying religious beliefsthrough the creation and practice of rituals.Rather than focus on stable meanings of rit-ual actions, practice theorists emphasize theexperiential aspects of ritual and the effectsof ritual on the social relations between rit-ual participants. As such, practice approachestend to focus on ritual change and what rit-ual does rather than on what it means, al-though it is important not to overplay thispoint.

If rituals enact religious principles, follow-ing a structural perspective, then all ritualsshould be religious or at least religious ritu-als should constitute a fairly distinct category.However, by placing the stress on ritual, prac-tice theorists have a different problem. Sports,theater, and other activities—what Bell (1997,Ch. 5) labels ritual-like activities—are diffi-cult to distinguish from religious ritual. Bell’suse of the term ritual-like belies an interestin maintaining a separation between religiousand secular rituals while recognizing the dif-ficulty, if not impossibility, of doing so.

From a practice perspective, Bell (1997,Ch. 5) identifies six characteristics that ritu-als and ritual-like activities exhibit to varyingdegrees. Bell is clear that these characteristicsare not exhaustive, nor are the characteristicslimited to religious ritual. The characteristicsare as follows.

� Formalism: Rituals often employ moreformal, or restricted, codes of speechand action than people use in everydaylife.

� Traditionalism: Rituals often employ ar-chaic or anachronistic elements.

� Invariance: Rituals often follow strict,often repetitive, patterns.

� Rule-governance: Rituals are often gov-erned by a strict code of rules that de-termine appropriate behavior.

� Sacral symbolism: Rituals oftenmake reference to, or employ, sacredsymbolism.

� Performance: Ritual often involves pub-lic display of ritual actions.

Ritual, from this perspective, is more aprocess than an event (Bell 1992, Humphrey& Laidlaw 1994). Certain actions are, or be-come, ritualized; they become more formal,traditional, invariant, etc. That is, ordinaryactions assume greater meaning and signifi-cance. Although not strictly required by thetheoretical perspective, much of the literatureon practice theory emphasizes the ways thatritualization promotes the development of re-lationships of power (Bell 1992, Comaroff1985, Ortner 1989). By focusing on the role

58 Fogelin

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


of ritual in forming, perpetuating, or resistingpower relationships, practice theorists down-play the importance of symbolism in favor ofanalyses that concern the ways people harnesssymbolism to achieve specific ends. Thus, thespecific meaning of a symbol is less importantthan the manner in which it is deployed andthe goals of the people who deploy it. Like-wise, some archaeologists emphasize how theexperience of ritual creates, reaffirms, or chal-lenges dominant social orders (Bradley 1998,DeMarrais et al. 1996, Fogelin 2006, Inomata2006, Inomata & Coben 2006, Lucero 2003,Moore 1996).

IDENTIFYING RITUAL INARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS

One of the earliest questions of archaeologistswho studied religious ritual was how to iden-tify materials and locales that could be con-sidered religious. As will become clear below,many archaeologists now feel that this ques-tion is, at a basic level, flawed. That said, ar-chaeologists have long referred to any arti-fact or feature that was strange, aberrant, orinexplicable as religious, the assumption be-ing that religion consists of those things thathave no functional value or are just plain odd(Hodder 1982, p. 164; Renfrew 1994). De-spite recent criticisms of trying to label thingsas religious or not, the desire by early pio-neers in the archaeology of religion and ritualto develop more precise definitions is under-standable in the contexts in which they wereworking.

The recent resurgence of interest in rit-ual by anthropological archaeologists can betraced back to Renfrew’s pioneering workat the Phylakopi Sanctuary on the Islandof Melos in Greece (Renfrew 1985; seealso Barrett 1991, Carmichael et al. 1994,Garwood et al. 1991). Here Renfrew at-tempted to establish specific criteria to eval-uate whether a specific architectural complexwas a cult center or sanctuary. With this goalin mind, Renfrew (1985, p. 19) developed a listof material correlates that typically character-

ize the practice of ritual and compared it withhis archaeological assemblage. These archae-ological characteristics of ritual included sac-rificed plants or animals, a location in eitherspecial buildings or geographic locales, anddistinct architectural elements (e.g., pools,benches, and alters). In the end, Renfrew con-cluded many of the characteristics of religiousritual were present and that the structure hewas investigating was a cult sanctuary.

I do not doubt Renfrew’s identification ofPhylakopi’s cult center. What I find interest-ing are the underlying views that Renfrewbrings to his research. Despite his focus onthe material remains of a ritual practice, hisunderstanding of religion could be describedbest as structural (Renfrew 1985, p. 12, italicsin original).

The archaeologist . . . cannot observe be-liefs: one can only work with material re-mains, the consequences of actions. In fa-vorable cases . . . these remains are the resultof actions which we can plausibly interpretas arising from religious belief.

Renfrew provides an example of a structuralview of religion that begins with and cen-ters on ritual. Renfrew correctly notes thatmany rituals are not religious. For Renfrew,then, the main goal of his criteria is to de-velop methods to exclude those material con-sequences of ritual that are not religiouslymotivated. Renfrew accepts that his crite-ria will tend to exclude domestic and othersmall-scale rituals (Renfrew 1985, pp. 21–22).For Renfrew this loss is acceptable if it al-lows for the archaeological identification of atleast those rituals that are unquestionably de-rived from religious beliefs. Other archaeolo-gists are less willing to exclude the fringes ofritual.

In contrast with Renfrew, other archae-ologists of a more structuralist bent acceptthat ritual and religion are more expansiveand less clearly definable than has been tra-ditionally accepted (Bruck 1999, Insoll 2004).To accommodate this position, structuralist


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


archaeologists are forced to expand thebreadth of religion’s influence on every-day lives. By rejecting the Durkheimian(1915[1995]) distinction between the sacredand profane, these structuralist thinkers be-gin to equate religion and culture. This per-spective can be found most clearly in Insoll’srecent discussions of religion (Insoll 2004,p. 22).

The more we look, the more we can seereligion as a critical element in many ar-eas of life above and beyond those usuallyconsidered—technology, diet, refuse pat-terning, housing. All can be influenced byreligion; they are today, why not in the past?Religion can be of primary importance instructuring life into which secular concernsare fitted, the reverse of the often-positedframework.

One can clearly see an element of truthto this argument. Simply because some ac-tion is economically rational does not nec-essarily mean that it is not also religiouslymotivated. However, from this perspective,religion seems to be everywhere and all per-vasive in nonwestern societies. The problemwith this perspective is the growing recogni-tion (noted by Insoll 2004, p. 17) that some so-cieties, even “traditional” societies, have onlya limited interest in things religious (Barth1961, Douglas 1982, Kemp 1995). The sep-aration of church and state may be a mod-ern, western notion, but it is a mistake to as-sume that people in other societies were orare necessarily ruled by their religious be-liefs any more, or less, then are Europeansor Americans. The centrality of religion inhuman society can be expected to be highlyvariable and assumptions of its universal im-portance highly suspect.

The expansiveness of Insoll’s view of reli-gion is partially the product of his structuralview of religion itself. Following Otto (1950),Insoll (2004, p. 150) argues that archaeologistsmust recognize “that elements of the archae-ology of religions are metaphysical by defi-

nition. Unfortunately, with much of the ar-chaeology of religions we will never get at itsessence no matter how long we boil the pot,because it is in the mind, it defies rationality,and . . . it will remain elusive.” Whereas Insollrejects Renfrew’s reliance on the distinctionbetween the sacred and profane, he persists inrelying on a structural understanding of reli-gion. When combined, these two views lead toa degree of pessimism concerning the poten-tial for archaeologists to study religious ritualssuccessfully.

Others who are interested in domestic orother small-scale rituals celebrate the idea thatreligious and secular rituals are not distinctor clearly identifiable (Bradley 2005, Walker1999). Rather than seeing this as a problem,these archaeologists are interested in the pro-cess whereby a seemingly ordinary action be-comes ritualized. Rather than seeing rituals aseither religious or secular, archaeologists ofthis sort view as worthy of study the gray areabetween the two.

Once we reject the idea that the only func-tion of ritual is to communicate religious be-liefs, it becomes unnecessary to separate thiskind of activity from the patterns of daily life.In fact, ritual extends from the local, infor-mal and ephemeral to the public and highlyorganized, and their social contexts varyaccordingly. (Bradley 2005, p. 33)

In a detailed study of ritual in prehis-toric Europe, Bradley (2005) intentionally ex-plores the blurred areas between religiousrituals, secular rituals, and everyday life. Inone brief discussion, Bradley examines thedifficulties archaeologists have had in deci-phering the role of a type of earthen en-closure (Vierekschanze) in Neolithic centralEurope. These structures blend ritual, do-mestic, and even industrial characteristics inways that have frustrated attempts at un-derstanding them. One of these structures,Msecke Zehrovice in Bohemia, blends ritualstructures and metalworking (Bradley 2005,pp. 21–23; Venclova 1998). Relying on

60 Fogelin

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


ethnographic accounts of metalworking,Bradley argues that the transformative prac-tices of metalworking typically rely on magic,ritual, and restricted knowledge (see Schmidt& Mapunda 1997; see also Dobres 2000). Tra-ditionally metalworking was a ritual act, evenif it resulted in the production of utilitarianobjects. Thus, the question “is it religious?”is viewed as fundamentally flawed. Unlike theposition advocated by Insoll, Bradley rejectsboth the structural view of religion and thedistinction between sacred and profane. Met-alworking is both sacred and profane. Sacred-ness does not adhere to any object or phe-nomena in particular, but is created throughan object’s use or performance in specific con-texts, often tied metaphorically to an object’smundane or domestic role (Bradley 2005; seealso Ortman 2000, Plunket ed. 2002, Tilley1999).

RITUAL AS ACTION

Archaeologists do not necessarily have to de-velop a theory of mind or symbolic exegesisto recognize that sequences of deposits andvariability within those deposits can revealritual and nonritual activities. Rather, theyneed to recognize that ritual embodies be-haviors as much as symbols. (Walker 1998,p. 296)

Until recently, most archaeologists viewed re-ligion in structural terms: that religion con-sisted of belief, doctrine, and mythology.Ritual, if it was considered at all, was decid-edly secondary. Given this understanding, it isnot surprising that archaeologists argued thatreligion was not a productive field of research(Binford 1965, Hawkes 1954; in contrast seeFritz 1978). This perception began to changewith the advent of more practice-orientedapproaches to the anthropology of religion.Archaeologists had long recognized that thearchaeological record was created by humanactions in the past; they now recognized thatritual could also leave material traces as well.With this new insight, archaeologists in both

the United States and Europe began to workon developing new methodologies for theinterpretation of rituals as forms of humanaction.

Behavioral Archaeology

Among the first to examine ritual as actionin the United States was Walker in his stud-ies of witchcraft in the American Southwest(Walker 1996, 1998, 1999). Following theprinciples of behavioral archaeology, Walkerdefined his subject matter as “ritual behav-ior and its attendant ritual objects as ma-terial processes comprised of people inter-acting with artifacts” (Walker 1998, p. 246).Walker explicitly argued against a simple di-vision between utilitarian/nonutilitarian arti-facts. Rather, he argued that the ritual aspectsof artifacts are a product of their use in a rit-ual context—that normal, everyday artifactstake on special ritual significance based onritual use during the life history of the arti-fact. In particular, Walker investigated krato-phanous violence, the intentional destructionand discard of ritual objects. By carefully in-vestigating the context in which objects weredeposited, Walker argued that it is possible toidentify those objects, or people, that were therecipients of kratophanous violence. Walkerargued specifically that evidence for extremepostmortem violence against certain individ-uals, structures, and artifacts was evidencefor the ethnohistorically known ritual treat-ment of witches in the American Southwest.In addition to Walker’s behavioral approachto sacrificial ritual, many other archaeologicalstudies of sacrifice, votive deposits, and offer-ings have also been conducted by other ar-chaeologists (Bradley 2005; Hill 1995, 2003;Kunen et al. 2002; Lucero 2003; Marcus 1998;Osborne 2004).

Of particular importance to the archaeo-logical study of ancient ritual is the commend-able rigor and nuance that Walker’s (1998,1999, 2002; see also Appadurai 1986) life-history approach brings to the question “isit religious?” It allows for artifacts to be


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


considered both utilitarian and religious de-pending on the questions, or contexts, be-ing investigated. In this sense, the methodsand conclusions of behavioral archaeology aresurprisingly similar to research that relies onpractice theory.

Experiential Approaches to Ritual

In contrast to the behavioral emphasis ontaphonomy, archaeologists who rely on prac-tice theory have focused attention on the wayin which ritual was experienced by people inthe past (Bradley 2000; Fogelin 2003, 2004,2006; Howey & O’Shea 2006; Inomata 2006;Inomata & Coben 2006; Moore 1996; Smith& Brooks 2001; see also Tilley 1994 for aphenomenological approach to experientialarchaeology). A particularly robust exampleof the experiential approach is presented byMoore (1996) in his study of pyramid com-plexes in coastal Peru. He carefully exam-ined the size, elevation, and layout of pyramidcomplexes, paying close attention to the ac-tual and perceived size of the pyramids fromthe viewpoint of the people standing belowthem. He concluded that a variety of architec-tural tricks were employed in the constructionof the pyramids to increase their grandeur.In turn, this grandeur served to promote thepower of those in charge of the rituals per-formed on top of the structures. On a morepragmatic level, Moore noted that given thegreat distance between the ritual participantson the pyramids and the spectators below, therituals performed must have required largemovements and limited vocalizations becauseit would have been exceptionally difficult forthe audience to see or hear what was occurringon top of the pyramids.

As in Moore’s emphasis on “architectureof power” (Moore 1996; see also Fox 1996),archaeologists who focus on the experientialelements of ritual often emphasize the waysthat rituals serve the interests of authority andresistance to authority. In his work on earlyBuddhist Monasteries in South India, Fogelin(2003, 2006) examined the spatial organiza-

tion of ritual architecture to demonstrate thatdifferent layouts promoted rituals that alter-nately served monastic or lay Buddhist inter-ests. At those religious centers most closelyassociated with Buddhist monasteries, ritualspaces were organized so that an individualcould stand between the central symbolic fo-cus (a large hemispherical mound referred toas a stupa) of the space and devotees who wereforced to face him or her. This layout pro-moted leadership roles for monks in ritual ob-servances. In contrast, ritual centers favoredby the laity placed the stupa at the center of alarge courtyard, eliminating the potential forany individual to stand between the ritual fo-cus and all those who were engaged in rit-ual around it. If any individual attempted toplace themselves physically as intermediaries,the audience could simply walk to the otherside of the stupa and ignore the presumptiveritual leader entirely. Thus, different archi-tectural layouts of religious centers promotedritual experiences that favored either monas-tic or lay-Buddhist interests.

Both behavioral and experiential ap-proaches to the archaeology of ritual down-play, if not exclude, investigations of sym-bolism. Rather, both tend to focus more onthe functions of ritual, often in terms of le-gitimizing existing social orders. This doesnot mean that archaeologists who employthese approaches are uninterested in symbolicmeaning, but only that they tend to be moreconservative in their use of it. Where stronghistoric or ethnohistoric sources are avail-able, even archaeologists who emphasize rit-ual practice will use them (see Fogelin 2006,Walker 1998). However, the strong emphasison human action in these approaches placeslesser value on symbolic understandings ofpast ritual.

RITUALS AND SYMBOLS

Many archaeologists, myself included, havecriticized those archaeologists who focus onsymbolic analyses (Fogelin 2007, Howey &O’Shea 2006, Insoll 2004, Renfrew 1994,

62 Fogelin

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Walker 1998). I now believe that I was mis-taken in many of my early criticisms. Ritu-als do, at times, enact deeper religious beliefsthrough complex symbolic actions. If religionand ritual truly inform one another, archae-ologists can only benefit from investigationsinto both sides of the dialectic. Where writtensources describe religious beliefs, mytholo-gies, and symbolism, a structural approach toritual is fairly straightforward. However, thereis no reason, a priori, to assume that prehis-torians cannot study ancient symbolism andbelief. The question remains, however, howbest to study symbolism within the materialconfines of archaeological research.

If symbols are organized in complex sys-tems, as Geertz (1973) argues, then knowl-edge of some aspects of the symbolic systemcould be used to infer other parts. Archaeolo-gists might even identify a key symbol (Ortner1973), one that serves as a central element ofancient ritual practices. Furthermore, studiesof ancient symbolism need not focus solely onthe symbols themselves but can infer symbolicmeanings of rituals from the material remainsof rituals themselves. Archaeologists can usestructural regularities in the relationship be-tween ritual and religion to investigate sym-bolism and belief in the past, even in the ab-sence of historical or ethnohistorical sources.

Enactments of Meaning

Perhaps the most common approach to the ar-chaeological study of ritual consists of usinghistoric or ethnohistoric sources as a guide tothe interpretation of archaeological remains.Brown’s (2003; see also Brown 1997, Hall1997) analysis of a burial assemblage withinMound 72 at Cahokia in the American Bottomprovides a good example of the strengths ofthis approach. Mound 72 consists of severalburials, one laying on top of a cape of 20,000marine shell beads (Fowler et al. 1999). An-other burial lies directly below the former,with several others burials surrounding them.Traditionally, this assemblage has been inter-preted as an elite burial surrounded by buri-

als of his attendants—some potentially sacri-ficed as part of the mortuary ritual (Emerson1997, Pauketat 2004). Relying on ethnohis-toric sources and detailed iconographic anal-yses, Brown argues for a different interpreta-tion, that the assemblage is the retelling of aspecific myth common in the Midwest (Brown2003, p. 96).

Led by a falcon hero, the heroes, fourin number, game with the representativesof death and the netherworld (Hall 1997).Ultimately losing their heads, the heroespass into temporary oblivion. In time the sonor sons/nephews of the falcon hero avengethe death of their ancestors by seizing thehead from the custody of death.

This myth is made materially manifest in amortuary tableau at Mound 72. Brown iden-tifies the figures in the myth through exam-inations of the iconographic elements foundwithin each burial. The central figure, layingon the beaded cape, is the avenging son of thefalcon hero, laying directly above the defeatedfigure of death. The surrounding burials con-sist of the falcon hero and his teammates. Fur-thermore, all the figures within the tableau are“constructed” of secondary burials with theexception of one: the primary burial of an in-dividual in the position of the falcon hero. ForBrown, it is this figure, not the figure on thebeaded cape, for whom the mythic tableau wasconstructed. Thus, traditional interpretationsof the mortuary assemblage, in the absence ofthe symbolic associations, led to the incorrectidentification of the only elite burial withinthe assemblage as that of an attendant.

The strength of Brown’s interpretationrests on his use of structural assumptions con-cerning the guiding force of religious thought(the falcon hero myth) in directing ritual ac-tion (the interment of people within Mound72). For Brown, then, the ritual actions atMound 72 are best explained as ritual en-actments of symbolic meaning rather than assimple statements of ritual power. Brown’sanalysis also demonstrates the value of ritual


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


MORTUARY RITUAL

Among the most developed subjects within the archaeologyof ritual are studies of mortuary ritual. Archaeologists havelong recognized that the interment of human remains is typi-cally associated with rituals, often understood in terms of ritesof passage (Turner 1966, Van Gennep 1960). Given the largenumber of studies of mortuary ritual and the existence of sev-eral excellent reviews on the subject (Pearson 2001, Williamset al. 2005), I have chosen not to discuss mortuary archaeologyin any significant detail. Approaches to the study of mortuaryritual have many of the same elements as studies of ritual gen-erally. Where some archaeologists focus on the iconographicand symbolic meaning of grave goods, others focus more onthe processes of interment of the body and the ritual practicesthat accompanied interment. In general, archaeologists havegradually moved away from studies that see mortuary ritual aspassively reflecting society toward studies that see mortuaryritual as actively constructing social orders.

perspectives in the study of mortuary practices(see Mortuary Ritual).

Ethnohistorical and historical sources in-form numerous studies of ancient ritual,particularly in the new world (e.g., Bauer1992, Brady & Prufer 2005, Sekaquaptewa& Washburn 2004, Hayes-Gilpin & Hill1999, Fowles 2005). These studies rely on thegreater ability of myth, art, and other formsof religious expression to provide guidanceon the interpretation of material remains ofritual. One can, however, investigate symbolsarchaeologically in other ways, by exploitingother structural understandings of symbols.

Cognitive Archaeology

A different approach to structural regulari-ties in ritual is promoted by cognitive archae-ologists (Renfrew & Zubrow 1994, Mithen1998). Cognitive archaeologists focus on thephysiological processes of the human brainand the implications of these processes on hu-man cognition. Unlike other structural ex-planations of ritual, cognitive archaeologyactually posits the specific cause of sym-

bolic regularities but fails to illuminate spe-cific meanings of the ritual symbols. In thissense it blends the experiential and symbolicapproaches discussed thus far. Whereas themeaning of a symbol is downplayed in cog-nitive archaeology, the experience of creatingand working with symbols is well explored.

Lewis-Williams (2002b) has argued thatrock art often depicts the effects of theshamanic trance state on the human brain(Pearson 2002, Price 2001, Whitley & Keyser2003). When going into a trance state,whichever means are used to achieve it, severalcommon physiological stages occur (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988). Initially, peopleentering a trance state begin seeing entop-tic visions—flickering or wavy geometric linesand dots visible with eyes open or shut. In thenext stage, the mind of the person in the trancestate tries to make sense of the entoptic visionsby associating them with things that are famil-iar. A wavy line may be seen by the person in atrance as a horse or mountain. Finally, in thethird stage shamans feel as if they are pass-ing or flying through a tunnel into anotherworld. At this stage, odd groupings of entop-tic visions may be blended in the mind of ashaman, resulting in images of animals withhuman heads or other fantastical imagery.

The bulk of Lewis-Williams’s researchconcerns rock art in southern Africa (2002a),but his discussion of the rock art in Lascaux,an Upper Paleolithic cave site in France, illus-trates his overall perspective (Lewis-Williams1997, 2002b). He argues that spatial move-ment into the cave graphically representsthe shamanic movement into trance. Thus,initially the cave has a substantial amountof geometric and animal motifs. Movinginward the images depict elements repre-senting movement through a tunnel, finallyreaching the deepest portions of the cavewhere blended and fantastic images occur. ForLewis-Williams, the cave paintings of Lascauxare a record of shamanic rituals practiced17,000 years ago in Europe. Although Lewis-Williams’s interpretation does not decipherthe specific meaning of the bulls, horses, and

64 Fogelin

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


other painting in Lascaux, it does offer an ex-planation for the creation of the paintings andidentify the practice of a specific form of rit-ual, shamanism, in the distant past.

Symbols and Power

A final approach to the study of ritual sym-bolism concerns issues of power and the cre-ation of dominant ideologies. Whereas muchof this research relies on structural assump-tions concerning the dominance of religionand myth in ordering society, some of it fo-cuses more on how symbols are appropri-ated and manipulated to achieve specific ends(e.g., Inomata 2001, Lucero 2003, Mills 2004,Pauketat & Emerson 1991, VanPool 2003).The former approach assumes that the roleof ritual is enacting long-lasting cosmologi-cal orders that legitimize the ruling elite. Thelatter blends with experiential approaches toritual discussed earlier, with ritualized sym-bols as points of contention between rivalclaimants to power. In either case, researchin this vein asks who controls or benefits fromthe production, display, and performance ofritual symbolism? The main differences con-cern archaeologists’ views on the stability ordynamism of ritual symbolism.

An important element of these studies forall archaeological research on ritual is thatsymbols are also material things, that ide-ology is materialized in objects (DeMarraiset al. 1996; Robb 1998, 1999). Once material-ized, these symbolic objects can be controlledand manipulated in much the same way thatany other nonsymbolic object can. The rulingelite can, for instance, limit access to materialsymbols in much the same way they can limitaccess to food or other goods. Furthermore,the manipulation of a material symbol can actto change the underlying meaning of the samesymbol. The construction of a sacred buildingby a king is an avenue toward sacred power;limiting access to the same building affirmsthat sacred power is restricted to a select few.Ritual, in this formulation, is also form of ma-terialized ideology.

Pauketat & Alt (2004; see also Pauketatet al. 2002, Pauketat and Emerson 1991) pro-ductively employ these insights in an exam-ination of a cache of 70 stone axe heads atthe Grossman site, a small village in the up-lands above Cahokia. Through careful exam-inations of the placement, material, and mor-phology of the axe heads, Pauketat & Altargue that the cache was constructed as partof a ritual intended to promote solidarityamong the diverse social groups coming underthe dominion of Cahokia. Different people,representing different social groups, placedaxe heads into the cache sequentially, sig-nifying their unity. As stated by Pauketat& Alt (2004, p. 794), “the ritual burial ofthe axe-heads at Grossman might have sig-nified the coming together of the Cahokianorder.”

Approaches to Ritual Symbolism

If symbols are material things that can be ma-nipulated and used by people in the past, thenarchaeologists should be able to infer at leastsome of their meaning through careful exami-nations of their material context. These stud-ies can be heavily informed by historic andethnohistoric sources or even by generalizedprocesses of the human brain. The materialcontext of symbols can also be used to in-fer the manner in which they were employedto reaffirm dominant ideologies. Whateverapproach is used, deciphering the symbolicmeanings of past rituals, particularly in ab-sence of historic or ethnohistoric sources, re-mains among the most challenging and un-derdeveloped aspects of the archaeology ofritual.

CONCLUSION

The insights of cognitive archaeology andpractice-centered archaeology—whether em-phasizing symbolism or human action—areimportant advances in the study of ancient rit-ual, but at least part of their success comesfrom avoiding the issue of symbolic meaning.


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Rather, both tend to emphasize more func-tional aspects of past ritual. These approachesdo provide rich accounts of ritual activi-ties in the past, but it is hard to deny thatinterpretations that also account for sym-bolic meaning would be even richer. Whenit comes to symbolic meaning, archaeologistsstill rely primarily on ethnohistoric and his-toric sources to guide their interpretations.Future research on the archaeology of rit-ual needs to develop new, robust approachesto the interpretation of symbolic meaning inritual.

In the past few decades archaeologists havemade great strides in deciphering cosmo-logical principles. Now archaeologists mustdevelop methods for identifying how cosmo-logical or religious concepts are materially en-acted or communicated through ritual. A firststep toward this end would be ethnoarchae-ological studies of ritual (see Jordan 2003).Ethnoarchaeological research could begin to

address the material implications of ritual andritual symbolism that are often lacking in theexisting anthropological literature.

Few archaeologists strictly follow eithera structural or practice-oriented approach tothe archaeology of ritual. More typically, ar-chaeologists employ insights from both per-spectives in their research. Given the di-alectical nature of religion and ritual andthe fragmentary evidence of ancient ritual,blended approaches are both necessary andsuccessful. This does not mean that archaeol-ogists have overcome the contradictions be-tween a structural and agent-oriented under-standing of ritual but only that they haveproductively sidestepped the problem. Fu-ture archaeological research on ritual mustbegin to address these issues more explic-itly, if only to identify regularities better inthe relationship between religion and ritualthat can be exploited for new archaeologicalresearch.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. Archaeologists often assume that ritual is a form of human action that leaves materialtraces, whereas religion is a more abstract symbolic system consisting of beliefs, myths,and doctrines. The dialectic between ritual and religion allows each to inform on theother.

2. Some archaeologists view religion as primary, with ritual as a means of enacting theembedded meanings of religious belief. Others see ritual as primary; the specifics ofreligious belief systems are created to conform to rituals practices.

3. Archaeologists who see religion as primary see the goal of the archaeology of ritual asthe identification of underlying meaning of ritual acts. Studies of this sort often makeextensive use of historical and ethnohistorical sources.

4. Archaeologists who view ritual as primary investigate the ways that the experienceof ritual served to create, reaffirm, or contest social orders, often viewed in terms ofauthority and subordination.

5. Archaeologists have also productively studied ancient symbols as material objects,gaining insight into the function of symbols, if not the meaning of them.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity ofthis review.

66 Fogelin

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


LITERATURE CITED

Appadurai A, ed. 1986. The Social Life of Things. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressBarrett JC. 1991. Toward an archaeology of ritual. In The Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of

a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual, and Religion, ed. P Garwood, D Jennings, R Skeates,J Toms, pp. 1–9. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Comm. Archaeol.

Barrett JC. 2001. Agency, the duality of structure, and the problem of the archaeological record.In Archaeological Theory Today, ed. I Hodder, pp. 141–64. London: Polity

Barth F. 1961. Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri Tribe of the Khamseh Confederacy. Boston:Little, Brown and Co.

Bauer BS. 1992. Ritual pathways of the Inca: an analysis of the Collasuyu Ceques in Cuzco.Latin Am. Antiq. 3:183–205

Bell C. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

An excellenthistorical review oftheories of ritual;the second half ofthe bookemphasizespractice theory

Bell C. 1997. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford Univ. PressBinford LR. 1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. Am. Antiq.

31:203–10Bloch M. 1977. The past in the present. Man 12:278–92Bloch M. 1986. From Blessing to Violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressBradley R. 1991. Ritual, time, and history. World Archaeol. 23:209–19

Details anexperientialapproach to thestudy of ritualarchitecturethrough diachronicexaminations ofmonuments andlandscapes

Bradley R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience

in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London: RoutledgeBradley R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: RoutledgeBradley R. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge

An effectivedemonstration ofthe value ofstudyingsmall-scale,domestic ritualsand ritualization inprehistoriccontexts

Bradley R. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. London: RoutledgeBradley R, Williams H, eds. 1998. The past in the past. World Archaeol. Vol. 30Brady JE, Prufer KM, eds. 2005. In the Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican Ritual Cave

Use. Austin: Univ. Tex. PressBrown JA. 1997. The archaeology of ancient religion in the eastern woodlands. Annu. Rev.

Anthropol. 26:465–85Brown JA. 2003. The Cahokia mound 72-sub 1 burials as collective representations. Wis.

Archaeol. 84:83–99Bruck J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology.

Eur. J. Archaeol. 2:313–44Carmichael DL, Hubert J, Reeves B, Schanche A, eds. 1994. Sacred Sites, Sacred Spaces. London:

RoutledgeChesson MS, ed. 2001. Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mor-

tuary Rituals. Arlington: Am. Anthropol. Assoc.Comaroff J. 1985. Body of Power, Spirit of Resistance: The Culture and History of a South American

People. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressConnerton P. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressCove JJ. 1978. Survival or extinction: reflections on the problem of famine in Tsimshian and

Kaguru mythology. In Extinction and Survival in Human Populations, ed. CD Laughlin, IABrady, pp. 231–44. New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Argues thatideology ismaterialized inthings that can beemployed increating,reaffirming, orcontestingdominantideologies

DeMarrais E, Castillo LJ, Earle T. 1996. Ideology, materialization, and power Strategies.Curr. Anthropol. 37:15–86

Dobres MA. 2000. Technology and Social Agency. Malden: BlackwellDobres MA, Robb JE, eds. 2000. Agency in Archaeology. London: RoutledgeDouglas M. 1982. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: PantheonDurkheim E. 1915 [1995]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Emerson TE. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa: Univ. Ala. PressFogelin L. 2003. Ritual and presentation in early Buddhist religious architecture. Asian Perspect.

42:129–54Fogelin L. 2004. Sacred architecture, sacred landscape: early Buddhism in coastal Andhra

Pradesh. In Archaeology as History: South Asia, ed. HP Ray, CM Sinopoli, pp. 376–91. NewDelhi: ICHR

Fogelin L. 2006. Archaeology of Early Buddhism. Walnut Creek: AltamiraFogelin L. 2007. History, ethnography, and essentialism: the archaeology of religion and ritual

in South Asia. In The Archaeology of Ritual, ed. E Kyriakidis. Los Angeles: Cotsen Inst.Archaeol. In press

Fowler ML, Rose J, Leest BV, Ahler SA. 1999. The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Spacein Early Cahokia. Springfield: Ill. State Mus.

Fowles SM. 2005. Our father (our mother): gender, ideology, praxis and marginalization inPueblo religion. In Engaged Anthropology, ed. M Hegmon, BS Eiselt, pp. 27–51. AnnArbor: Mus. Anthropol., Univ. Mich.

Fox JG. 1996. Playing with power: ballcourts and political ritual in Southern Mesoamerica.Curr. Anthropol. 37:483–509

Frazer GJ. 1955. The Golden Bough: A Study of Magic and Religion. London: MacmillanFritz J. 1978. Paleopsychology today: ideational systems and human adaptation in prehistory.

In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, ed. C Redman, pp. 37–60. New York:Academic

Garwood P, Jennings D, Skeates R, Toms J, eds. 1991. The Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of aConference on Archaeology, Ritual, and Religion. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Comm. Archaeol.

Geertz C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic BooksHall RL. 1997. An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. Urbana: Univ.

Ill. PressHarris M. 1977. Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Culture. New York: Random House

An influential earlyarticle that arguedarchaeologistscould noteffectively studyprehistoric religion

Hawkes C. 1954. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the OldWorld. Am. Anthropol. 56:155–68

Hayes KA. 1993. When is a symbol archaeologically meaningful? Meaning, function, and pre-historic visual arts. In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda, ed. N Yoffee, A Sherratt,pp. 81–92. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Hays-Gilpin K, Hill JH. 1999. The flower world in material culture: an iconographic complexin the Southwest and Mesoamerica. J. Anthropol. Res. 55:1–37

Hill E. 2003. Sacrificing Moche bodies. J. Mater. Cult. 8:285–99Hill JD. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A Study on the Formation of a Specific

Archaeological Record. Oxford: Tempus RepartumHobsbawm E, Ranger T, eds. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Univ. PressHodder I. 1982. The Present Past. London: BatsfordHowey MCL, O’Shea JM. 2006. Bear’s journey and the study of ritual in archaeology. Am.

Antiq. 71:261–82Humphrey C, Laidlaw J. 1994. Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the

Jain Rite of Worship. Oxford: Oxford Univ. PressInomata T. 2001. The power and ideology of artistic creation. Curr. Anthropol. 42:321–49Inomata T. 2006. Plazas, performers, and spectators. Curr. Anthropol. 47:805–42Inomata T, Coben LS, eds. 2006. Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and

Politics. Walnut Creek: Altamira

68 Fogelin

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Insoll T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London: RoutledgeJonker G. 1995. The Topography of Remembrance: The Dead, Tradition and Collective Memory in

Mesopotamia. Leiden: E. J. BrillJordan P. 2003. Material Culture and the Sacred Landscape: The Anthropology of the Siberian Khanty.

Walnut Creek: AltamiraKemp B. 1995. How religious were the ancient Egyptians? Cambridge Archaeol. J. 5:25–54Kluckhohn C. 1942. Myths and rituals: a general theory. Harvard Theolog. Rev. 35:42–79Kunen JL, Galindo MJ, Chase E. 2002. Pits and bones: identifying Maya ritual behavior in the

archaeological record. Anc. Mesoam. 13:197–211Lansing SJ. 1991. Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of

Bali. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressLewis-Williams D, Dowson TA. 1988. The signs of all times: entoptic phenomena in Upper

Paleolithic art. Curr. Anthropol. 29:201–45Lewis-Williams JD. 1997. Harnessing the brain: vision and shamanism in Upper Paleolithic

Western Europe. In Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and symbol, ed. M Conkey, O Sofer,D Stratmann, NG Jablonski, pp. 321–42. San Francisco: Univ. Calif. Press

An example ofcognitivearchaeology,focused on the roleof shamanism inthe creation of rockart in southernAfrica

Lewis-Williams JD. 2002a. A Cosmos In Stone: Interpreting Religion and Society Through

Rock Art. Walnut Creek, CA: AltamiraLewis-Williams JD. 2002b. The Mind in the Cave. London: Thames and HudsonLucero LJ. 2003. The emergence of classic Maya rulers. Curr. Anthropol. 44:523–58Marcus J. 1998. Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca: Figurine-making, Divination and the An-

cestors. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Mus. Anthropol.Meskell LM. 2002. Private Life in New Kingdom Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressMills BJ. 2004. The establishment and defeat of hierarchy: inalienable possessions and the

history of collective prestige structures in the Pueblo Southwest. Am. Anthropol. 106:238–52

Minc L. 1986. Scarcity and survival: the role of oral tradition in mediating subsistence crises.J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 5:39–113

Mithen S. 1998. Prehistory of the Mind. London: PhoenixMoore JD. 1996. Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.

PressMuller M. 1967. Lectures on the Science of Language. New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co.Ortman SG. 2000. Conceptual metaphor in the archaeological record: methods and an example

from the American Southwest. Am. Antiq. 65:613–45Ortner SB. 1973. On Key Symbols. Am. Anthropol. 75:1338–46Ortner SB. 1989. High Religion: A Cultural and Political History of Sherpa Buddhism. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton Univ. PressOsborne R, ed. 2004. Object of Dedication. World Archaeol. Vol. 36Otto R. 1950. The Idea of the Holy. Oxford: Oxford Univ. PressPauketat TR. 2001. Practice and history in archaeology: an emerging paradigm. Anthropol.

Theory 1:73–98Pauketat TR. 2004. Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.

PressPauketat TR, Alt SM. 2004. The making and meaning of a Mississippian axe-head cache.

Antiquity 78:779–97Pauketat TR, Emerson TE. 1991. The ideology of authority and the power of the pot. Am.

Anthropol. 93:919–41Pauketat TR, Kelly LS, Fritz GJ, Lopinot NH, Elias S, Hargrave E. 2002. The residues of

feasting and public ritual at early Cahokia. Am. Antiq. 67:257–79


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Pearson JL. 2002. Shamanism and the Ancient Mind. Walnut Creek, CA: AltamiraPearson MP. 2001. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Station: Tex. A&M Univ. PressPlunket P, ed. 2002. Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica. Los Angeles: Cotsen Inst. Archaeol.Price N, ed. 2001. The Archaeology of Shamanism. London: RoutledgeRappaport RA. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors. New Haven: Yale Univ. PressRappaport RA. 1979. Ritual regulation of environmental relations among a New Guinea people.

In Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. Berkeley, CA: N. Atl. Books

A seminal workarguing thatarchaeologists caneffectively identifythe materialremains of religionand ritual

Renfrew C. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. London: Thamesand Hudson

Renfrew C. 1994. The archaeology of religion. In The Ancient Mind, ed. C Renfrew, E Zubrow,pp. 47–54. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Renfrew C, Zubrow E, eds. 1994. The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Robb JE. 1998. The archaeology of symbols. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 27:329–46Robb JE, ed. 1999. Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale, IL: Cent.

Archaeol. Investig.Robertson Smith W. 1969. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions.

New York: KTAVRowlands M. 1993. The role of memory in the transmission of culture. World Archaeol. 25:141–

51Scarborough VL. 1998. Ecology and ritual: water management and the Maya. Latin Am. Antiq.

9:135–59Schmidt PR, Mapunda BB. 1997. Ideology and the archaeological record in Africa: interpreting

symbolism in iron smelting technology. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 16:73–102Sekaquaptewa E, Washburn D. 2004. They go along singing: reconstructing the Hopi past

from ritual metaphors in song and image. Am. Antiq. 69:457–86Smith A, Brooks A, eds. 2001. Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to Landscape and Material

Culture of Ritual Space Objects. Oxford: ArchaeopressSobel E, Bettles G. 2000. Winter hunger, winter myths: subsistence risk and mythology among

the Klamath and Modoc. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 19:276–313Tattersall I. 1998. Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness. San Diego, CA: Harcourt

BraceTilley C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: BergTilley C. 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. London: BlackwellTurner V. 1966. Betwixt and between: the liminal period in rites of passage. In The Forest of

Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual, pp. 93–111. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. PressVan Dyke RM, Alcock SE, eds. 2003. Archaeologies of Memory. Malden: BlackwellVan Gennep A. 1960. The Rites of Passage. London: Routledge & Kegan PaulVanPool CS. 2003. The shaman-priests of the Casas Grandes Region, Chihuahua, Mexico.

Am. Antiq. 68:696–717Venclova N. 1998. Msecke Zehrovice in Bohemia: Archaeological Background to a Celtic Hero. Sceaux:

Kronos B. Y.Walker WH. 1996. Ritual deposits: another perspective. In River of Change: Prehistory of the

Middle Little Colorado River, ed. CE Adams, pp. 75–91. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press

Introduces abehavioralapproach to thearchaeologicalstudy of ritual, witha focus on ritualdeposition,violence, andwitchcraft

Walker WH. 1998. Where are the witches of prehistory. J. Archaeol. Method Theory

5:245–308Walker WH. 1999. Ritual, life histories, and the afterlives of people and things. J. Southwest

41:383–405

70 Fogelin

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Walker WH. 2002. Stratigraphy and practical reason. Am. Anthropol. 104:159–77Wallace AFC. 1966. Culture and Personality. New York: Random HouseWhitley DS, Keyser JD. 2003. Faith in the past: debating an archaeology of religion. Antiquity

77:385–93Williams SR, Rakita GFM, Rakita FM, Buikstra JE, eds. 2005. Interacting With the Dead:

Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium. Gainesville: Univ. Press Fla.

RELATED RESOURCES

Insoll T, ed. 2001. Archaeology and World Religion. London: RoutledgeKyriakidis E, ed. 2007. The Archaeology of Ritual. Los Angeles: Cotsen Inst. Archaeol. In PressWhitley D, Hayes-Gilpin K, eds. 2007. Belief in the Past. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

In press


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR323-FM ARI 24 August 2007 20:38

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 36, 2007Contents

Prefatory Chapter

Overview: Sixty Years in AnthropologyFredrik Barth � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �1

Archaeology

The Archaeology of Religious RitualLars Fogelin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 55

Çatalhöyük in the Context of the Middle Eastern NeolithicIan Hodder � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �105

The Archaeology of Sudan and NubiaDavid N. Edwards � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �211

A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientific Techniques intoArchaeological InterpretationA. Mark Pollard and Peter Bray � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �245

Biological Anthropology

Evolutionary MedicineWenda R. Trevathan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �139

Genomic Comparisons of Humans and ChimpanzeesAjit Varki and David L. Nelson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �191

Geometric MorphometricsDennis E. Slice � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �261

Genetic Basis of Physical FitnessHugh Montgomery and Latif Safari � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �391

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

SociophoneticsJennifer Hay and Katie Drager � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 89

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR323-FM ARI 24 August 2007 20:38

Comparative Studies in Conversation AnalysisJack Sidnell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �229

Semiotic AnthropologyElizabeth Mertz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �337

Sociocultural Anthropology

Queer Studies in the House of AnthropologyTom Boellstorff � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 17

Gender and TechnologyFrancesca Bray � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 37

The Anthropology of Organized Labor in the United StatesE. Paul Durrenberger � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 73

Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl:The Political Ecology of the New American WestThomas E. Sheridan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �121

Anthropology and MilitarismHugh Gusterson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �155

The Ecologically Noble Savage DebateRaymond Hames � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �177

The Genetic Reinscription of RaceNadia Abu El-Haj � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �283

Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where Are We Now?Susan Charnley and Melissa R. Poe � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �301

Legacies of Derrida: AnthropologyRosalind C. Morris � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �355

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 28–36 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �407

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 28–36 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �410

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be foundat http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:55-

71. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by J

awah

arla

l Neh

ru U

nive

rsity

on

11/1

4/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Lars Fogelin.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Lars Fogelin.pdf