1.

Introduction: Methods for

the Archaeology of Religion

Lars Fogelin

Abstract: In recent years, archaeologists have become increasingly interested

in the study of religion and ritual. The authors of this volume present a va-
riety of strategies for the archaeological investigation of religion drawn from
widely divergent geographic and temporal contexts. While necessarily includ-
ing discussions of different theoretical understandings of religion, the central
goal of the volume is to explore how archaeologists can effectively employ
the material remains of past societies to construct informed understandings
of religion and ritual. In this sense, the volume is a methodological primer on
the archaeology of religion. A unifying theme of the essays is the value of us-
ing multiple perspectives or approaches. Different authors combine studies of
iconography, symbolism, landscape, architecture, history, ethnohistory, and
mortuary archaeology to construct theoretically sophisticated and method-
ologically robust understandings of ancient religion and ritual.

In recent years, religion has become a popular topic in archaeology, with

several edited volumes, review articles, and books either in print or in press (e.g.,
Fogelin 2007a; Insoll 2001, 2004; Kyriakidis 2007; Plunket 2002; Whitley and Hays-
Gilpin 2008). The thrust of much of this work, including one of my own contribu-
tions (Fogelin 2007b), was to challenge earlier proscriptions against archaeological
studies of religion by archaeologists such as Lewis Binford (1965) and Christopher
Hawkes (1954). Using theoretically sophisticated arguments these publications jus-
tify, I believe, the value of the archaeological study of religion. The chapters in this
volume take this position as a starting pointthe archaeology of religion is a legiti-
mate venue for archaeological research. Rather than justify their research, the con-
Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World, edited by Lars Fogelin. Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 36. 2008 by the Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois Uni-
versity. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-0-88104-093-2.

1
2 L. Fogelin

tributors to this volume address how they have studied religion archaeologically.
As such, this collection of essays is a methodological primer for the archaeological
study of religionwith examples drawn from around the world.
The contributions to this volume were originally presented in a conference
(Religion in the Material World) held at the Center for Archaeological Investiga-
tions at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, March 30 through April 1, 2006.
The aim of the conference was to allow archaeologists with interests from widely
divergent areas to come together to compare their approaches to the archaeology
of religion. For two days the participants in the conference gathered to discuss
their approaches and share their research strategies. Over the course of the two
days I was impressed by the marked similarities that many of the contributions
shared. Particularly striking was an emphasis on combining insights from mul-
tiple research areas to approach ancient religion and ritual. In sum, the contribu-
tions to the conference addressed the uses of history, ethnohistory, iconography,
architecture, landscape, and mortuary analysis in a bewildering number of com-
binations. I came away from the conference convinced that the archaeology of
religion is most productive when, to use Edward Swensons (Chapter 13) phrase,
playing off different domains of information against one another. Religion is a
complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to a single dimension or variable.
While most of the participants shared a wide-ranging approach to their stud-
ies, there were some important differences in their understandings of religion.
Among the most pronounced differences existed among those who saw religion,
and therefore the archaeological study of religion, as symbolically oriented. Here
religion was viewed more in terms of cosmological understandings and mytho-
logical enactments of meaning. Conference participants with this orientation saw
the archaeology of religion as investigating the meaning of past rituals, symbols,
and religious artifacts. In many cases, archaeologists who employed this perspec-
tive relied heavily on historic or ethnohistoric sources to inform their interpreta-
tions. Other participants, taking a more functionalist approach, focused on how
the experience of religion and ritual served to promote forms of authority in the
past. Finally, several participants actively argued against studying ritual in terms
of meaning but rather for seeing ritual as a form of human action. Despite these
differences in perspective and lively debates over these issues, I was impressed
that most of the participants were not overly dogmatic in their perspectives. The
conference participants were happy with any approach that seemed to work,
and their research was stronger for it. As with their employment of wide-rang-
ing methodologies, most participants were happy to use a variety of theoretical
understandings of religion in their research if they thought they could help.

Theories

Though this volume takes a methodological approach to the archaeol-

ogy of religion, the different theoretical understandings of religion are impor-
tant for understanding the different methods that archaeologists employ. Among
the most basic differences is how different authors understand some of the basic
 Methods for the Archaeology of Religion 3

concepts of religion. For the most part, these theoretical understandings were
created outside the discipline of archaeology by cultural anthropologists, soci-
ologists, and scholars in religious studies. In borrowing these theories, archae-
ologists have been forced to derive material implications of often esoteric and
metaphysical understandings of religion. This is not an easy or self-evident pro-
cess. However, one central point seems to be clear. Whatever understanding of
religion archaeologists bring to their research they must exploit the simple fact
that religion is not simply of the mind but is made manifest in the material world.
Whatever the religious reasoning behind it, the construction of religious architec-
ture, the painting of religious symbolism, or the sacrice of religiously signicant
things leaves materials that archaeologists can study.
While all archaeologists must address the material remains of religion, there
are important differences in the way that archaeologists view the relationship
between material culture and religious beliefs (see Fogelin 2007a for an expanded
discussion of this point). In some cases archaeologists take a more structural view
of religion: that religious principles, cosmological understandings, and specic
myths serve to orient and direct human actions. These symbolically laden ac-
tions, in turn, order archaeological assemblages. From this perspective, the goal
of archaeological studies of ancient religion is to identify the underlying mean-
ings of religious practices. Other archaeologists take a more bottom-up view of
religion: that human actions and rituals serve to create and modify religious prin-
ciples. Other archaeologists see religion as a subset of ideology. Here religion is
understood as creating and contesting relationships of power. Below I discuss
each of these perspectives and the implications of these understandings of reli-
gion for the methodologies archaeologists can employ.

Practice Theory
In the past few decades, a new approach to the study of religion has
been promoted by a number of scholars in religious studies, sociology, and anthro-
pology. This perspective, practice theory, explicitly rejects the top-down structural
assumptions that have traditionally dominated discussions of religion (see Bell
1992, 1997; Bourdieu 1977; Comaroff 1985; Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994; Ortner
1989). Rather, practice theorists emphasize how the practice of ritual and religion
serves to create and alter more esoteric religious principles. As stated by Bell,

As practice, the most we can say [about ritual] is that it involves ritualization,
that is, a way of acting that distinguishes itself from other ways of acting. . . .
A practice approach to ritual will rst address how a particular community
or culture ritualizes (what characteristics of acting make strategic distinctions
between these acts and others) and then address when and why ritualization
is deemed to be the effective thing to do [1997:81].

From an archaeological perspective, Bells emphasis on human action and ritual

makes this a particularly fruitful approach. Archaeologists have long recognized
that the archaeological record is constructed not by human beliefs or cultures
but rather by human behaviors or actions (Schiffer 1983, 1995; see also Walker
4 L. Fogelin

1996, 1998). Similarly, Bell identies ritual as the active component of religious
practice. Thus, Bells theoretical perspective on ritual is particularly amenable to
archaeological application.
Bell identies six criteria that typically characterize rituals and ritual-like
activities (1997:138170). Bell recognizes that religious rituals and secular rituals
cannot be denitively isolated. While none of the essays in this volume focus on
nonreligious ritual, the characteristics that Bell provides could easily be adapted
to this purpose. Bells characteristics are these:

1. Formalism: Rituals often employ more formal, or restricted, codes of speech

and action than everyday life.
2. Traditionalism: Rituals often employ archaic or anachronistic elements.
3. Invariance: Rituals often follow strict, often repetitive, patterns.
4. Rule governance: Rituals often are governed by a strict code of rules that
determine appropriate behavior.
5. Sacral symbolism: Rituals often make reference to, or employ, sacred sym-
bolism.
6. Performance: Ritual often involves public display of ritual actions.

Underlying these characteristics is Bells conception of ritual as being a form

of human action that creates and alters religious beliefs. Many of the contributors
to this volume have found Bells practice approach to ritual to be particularly
amenable to archaeological application. For example, George Sabo III (Chapter
15) identies elements of formalism in the restricted set of iconographic elements
depicted in rock art surrounding the Arkansas River, while Swenson (Chapter
13) relies heavily on the performative elements of ritual in his study of the Moche
(see also Fogelin 2003, 2006; Inomata and Coben 2006; Moore 1996).
Bells six characteristics of ritual are not the only element that archaeologists
have drawn from her work. Holley Moyes (Chapter 8) focuses instead on Bells
(1997:173209) discussion of ritual density. Ritual density refers to the degree or
amount of ritual that a society engages in. Bell notes that while some societies
appear to engage in ritual constantly, others seem much more lax in their devo-
tions. Moyes examines the density of rituals within Chechem Ha Cave in western
Belize through careful examinations of the frequency of charcoal deposits from
torches and of ceramic offerings within the cave. Together these indicate that at
different periods of the caves use, rituals were practiced at varying intensities.
Further, the intensity of ritual can in turn be correlated with larger political, eco-
nomic, and social issues in society as a whole.

Dominant Ideologies
Another approach used by some contributors focuses more on how
the practice of religion serves to promote and resist systems of authority. Here re-
ligion and the practice of ritual are viewed as a means for promoting elite power
and hegemony (Bloch 1989; DeMarrais et al. 1996; Demarest and Conrad 1992;
Fox 1996; Kertzer 1988). For example, Thomas Emerson, Susan Alt, and Timo-
thy Pauketat (Chapter 12) carefully analyze ritual spaces in agricultural villages
 Methods for the Archaeology of Religion 5

surrounding Cahokia. They conclude that rituals occurred in these villages that
promoted Cahokian hegemony over its hinterlands. In essence, the rituals that
Emerson and colleagues discuss served to naturalize the Cahokian orthodoxy
among those people who lived in smaller, surrounding settlements. The same
perspective is employed by Swenson (Chapter 13) in his study of Moche ceremo-
nial architecture. Like Emerson and colleagues he argues that the iconography
and architecture employed by local elite in the Moche hinterlands served to pro-
mote a particular form of group identity that legitimized the rule of Moche elite.
In contrast to Emerson and colleagues, Swenson pays particular attention to the
ways that local Moche elite appropriated the ritual practices of the center to sup-
port their own local power.
A nal use of this perspective can be found in Nicola Laneris (Chapter 11)
analysis of Early Dynastic period burials in southern Mesopotamia. Laneri argues
that Mesopotamian elite employed funerary ritual to materialize an ideology of
elite authority. They accomplished this through elaborate funerary performances
and references to specic mythological traditions. All three of these chapters fol-
low a tradition in archaeology that sees religion as a subset of ideology. Ideology,
in this sense, is conceived of in Marxist termslegitimizing elite rule, creating
hegemonic power, or promoting false consciousness. Resistance to authority is
addressed but typically in terms of how resistance is overcome to establish a
common social identity. Like the studies that employ the concept of ritualization
generally, those studies that emphasize the creation of religious orthodoxies have
an important diachronic element; they investigate how orthodoxies were created
through the practice of religion and ritual.

Structure and Religion

A nal approach to the study of ancient religion is derived from more
structural understandings of religion. Here symbolic or cosmological understand-
ings of religion are viewed as the primary focus of inquiry. As stated by Geertz,

Religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive,

and long lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of
a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of
factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic [1973:90].

For archaeologists following this perspective the goal of archaeological research

is to identify the meanings of archaeological symbols and the ways these mean-
ings served to orient and underlie broader cultural patterns. While archaeologists
employing this perspective recognize that these symbolic meanings can serve to
legitimize elite power, they are less concerned about it.
Several contributors productively employ a structural understanding of rit-
ual in their analyses. John Kelly, James Brown, and Lucretia Kelly (Chapter 16)
identify falcon imagery and associated rituals as central to Cahokian cosmology,
particularly in regard to conceptions of fertility. In essence, Kelly and colleagues
argue that within the Cahokian cosmology the falcon is a key symbol (Ortner 1973)
6 L. Fogelin

that structures cosmological understandings and ritual practices in a wide variety

of contexts. Through comparisons with later Osage ethnohistory, Kelly and col-
leagues study adds to our understanding of the meaning of Cahokian symbol-
ism. Similarly, Tamara Bray (Chapter 7) also identies a key symbol found on Inca
pottery and textiles. Using the idea of conceptual metaphors (Ortman 2000; Til-
ley 1999), Bray argues that common symbols were employed that show a general
cosmological understanding among the Inca elite that some material things were
understood metaphorically in terms of the human body. Thus, pots could be deco-
rated with legs, arms, and design motifs common in Inca clothing. In this sense,
the Inca saw some pots as animate beings, not simply ceramic receptacles.
Both of these studies illustrate the value of symbolic approaches to the ar-
chaeological examination of iconography. They demonstrate that the meaning of
symbols can be decipheredthough often with the help of ethnohistoric sourc-
es. Once identied, however, the representation of a key symbol can be tracked
through multiple domains of archaeological materials to develop an understand-
ing of how people in the past viewed their world. The more static understand-
ings derived from these more structural understandings of religion are balanced
by the richness of their symbolic interpretations (see Hays 1993 for a more exten-
sive discussion of the value of studying archaeological symbolism).

Conclusion
The theories that archaeologists employ directly inform the methods
and sourcesthey use in their investigations of ancient religions. More structural
understandings of religion lead to studies that rely heavily on historic and ethno-
historic sources. In contrast, those who advocate a practice-based approach to re-
ligion tend to place greater emphasis on archaeological assemblages. Those who
see religion and ritual as sources for hegemonic power tend to lie somewhere be-
tween the two. That said, most archaeologists blend different understandings of
religion in their studies. Few are so dogmatic that they reject outright the insights
from alternative perspectives. A similar wide-ranging perspective characterizes
the specic methods that archaeologists use to study ancient religion.

Methods and Approaches

As with the diversity of theoretical understandings of religion, archae-

ologists also employ a variety of methods and approaches in their research, often
blending insights from different perspectives and methods. Likewise, none of the
chapters in this volume employ a single method or approach. Below I discuss the
chapters in terms of what I feel are the dominant methodological themes of each.
Among the central goals of many archaeologists is the identication of spe-
cic forms of ritual or religious practice in the past. Here, the material indicators
for common forms of religious practice (taboo, animism, shamanism, and so on)
are developed and compared with archaeological assemblages (see also Jordan
2003; Lewis-Williams 2002; Price 2001 concerning shamanism). Iconographic
 Methods for the Archaeology of Religion 7

studies are also popular among the contributors to this volume, but the authors
employ them in a bewildering variety of ways. Alternatively, some archaeolo-
gists employ recent insights into the study of landscape and architecture to in-
fer cosmological meanings, while others use architectural and landscape per-
spectives to explore ritual practices that legitimize social orders (see Smith and
Brooks 2001). Not surprisingly, mortuary analysis is also employed by several
contributors but, again, from radically different perspectives. While many of the
contributors employ historic and ethnohistoric sources in their analyses, several
address the value and importance of these sources more directly. Where some see
the direct historical approach (Ascher 1961) as critical for the understanding of
ancient religion, others argue that these sources are overused and less necessary
than archaeologists often assume (Insoll 2004).

Identication
Colin Renfrew (1985) conducted one of the most important early
archaeological studies of religion at the site of Phylakopi on the island of Me-
los. Here Renfrew encountered a set of rooms he believed to be a cult center.
Renfrew recognized, however, that he was not entirely sure what the dening
elements of a cult center were. Archaeologists, Renfrew argued, had tended to
label those things that were weird or inexplicable as religious. Given this state
of things, Renfrew decided to develop a more rigorous list of characteristics that
could effectively dene a religious center. In the end, Renfrew identied 16 ma-
terial implications for the practice of cult ritual and determined that the set of
rooms he was investigating was, in fact, a cult center. In the process he pioneered
an approach that emphasizes the rigorous identication of certain forms of reli-
gious practice through clearly dened material correlates (see also Barrett 1991;
Carmichael et al. 1994; Fritz 1978; Garwood et al. 1991; Renfrew 1994). Several of
the chapters in this volume follow the same general pattern, identifying material
indicators of specic types of religious practice in archaeological contexts.
Severin Fowles (Chapter 2) examines how one of the most ubiquitous ele-
ments of religious practice, taboo, can be identied archaeologically. Recognizing
the inherent difculty of investigating things that are intentionally not represent-
ed, Fowles argues that archaeologists can search out meaningful absences in
the archaeological record. He illustrates this point through studies of pork taboos
in the Near East, as well as taboos on the iconographic representation of mytho-
logical elements in Egypt and the southwest United States. Erica Hill (Chapter
3) employs detailed analyses of Moche iconography to argue that a fundamental
element of their religious worldview was animism; that people, artifacts, moun-
tains, and so on were all conceived as having a life force. Further, Hill argues
that Moche sacrice is best understood in light of the animistic core of Moche
religion. Both Fowles and Hill provide strong examples of how the identication
of specic types of religious practices can be robustly identied using archaeo-
logical materials.
Several other contributors examine cases in which the religious nature of
artifacts has been misidentied by archaeologists in the past. Joanne Murphy
8 L. Fogelin

(Chapter 4) and James Brady and Polly Peterson (Chapter 5) challenge the no-
tion that ceramic wares can be identied as religious artifacts through their ner
construction or elaborate decorative elements. Brady and Peterson approach this
question through a study of ceramic assemblages found in Mayan cavesas-
semblages, they argue, created exclusively through ritual actions. They nd that
the ceramic assemblages within caves contain large proportions of wares that
are indistinguishable from the wares Mayan surface archaeologists have labeled
utilitarian. Murphy challenges the same assumptions concerning newares in
Bronze Age Greece. Murphy, through careful contextual analyses, argues that
newares and representational art could be created for secular, aesthetic pur-
poses or as a statement of wealth, prestige, or power. In both of these studies
the authors contest the simple distinction between religious and secular objects,
arguing instead that religious artifacts are created through use in a religious con-
textthat ordinary, mundane objects can take on religious signicance (see also
Bradley 2005; Walker 1998, 1999). In this sense, these studies reject the Durkheim-
ian (1995 [1912]) distinction between the sacred and the profane (see also Bradley
2005; Brck 1999; Insoll 2004).
Susan Wise (Chapter 6) also addresses limitations in the identication of re-
ligious artifacts, in this case in relation to terra-cotta childbirth votives in ancient
Greece (see also Marcus 1998 and Osborne 2004 on the archaeology of votives).
Like Murphy, she argues that artifacts can have multivalent meanings; that iden-
tical votive gurines found at religious sites can have different ritual purposes.
Where some might be related to childbirth, others could be left for other ritual
purposes. Thus, terra-cotta votives were intentionally made to be somewhat ge-
neric looking so the same terra-cotta gurine could be used for different ritual
ends. While Wise accepts the identication of the terra-cotta gurines as being
religious, she nds the multiple meanings and functions of the votives worthy
of investigation.

Iconography and Symbolism

Many of those contributors who focus on the archaeological identi-
cation of religious practices employ iconographic elements in their identica-
tions. However, some contributors make greater use of iconographic elements
than others. Among those most interested in iconography are all of the con-
tributors who work in South America: Bray (Chapter 7), Hill (Chapter 3), and
Swenson (Chapter 13). More interestingly, all emphasize the need to compare
iconography across multiple domains, though each phrases it in different ways.
Bray emphasizes the value of conceptual metaphors in structuring the use of
symbols in multiple materials. In contrast, Swenson focuses more on identifying
the differences in the use and form of symbols in multiple media, isolating the
disjunctures between their use and representation in different contexts to infer
their function. Finally, Hill uses multiple iconographic representations to identify
the foundational concept of animism in Moche religious thought. In each case the
authors effectively demonstrate the value of cross-media studies, but they do so
 Methods for the Archaeology of Religion 9

for widely different purposes and with different theoretical understandings of

religions. These chapters show, perhaps, that some methodologies for the study
of ancient religion can transcend the theoretical divisions concerning the nature
of religionmethods for the study of religion have a degree of independence
from more theoretical concerns.

Architecture and Landscape

Sabo (Chapter 15) provides an interesting case study that combines
iconography with issues of landscape. In his analysis of rock art along the Arkan-
sas River, he uses patterned distributions of rock art north and south of the river
to infer the cosmological understandings of the Southeastern Indians who cre-
ated them. As such, Sabo identies the ways that Southeastern Indians inscribed
cosmological elements of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (Townsend and
Sharp 2004) into their landscape through the creation of rock art.
Other contributors used the distribution of religious architecture across
space to examine the ways that religion served to promote ruling ideologies. Em-
erson, Alt, and Pauketats (Chapter 12) and Swensons (Chapter 13) chapters,
discussed above, follow this approach. Mark McCoys (Chapter 14) examination
of ritual spaces in Hawaii also emphasizes the ways that religious architecture
and landscapes can legitimize elite rule. Specically, he examines how the con-
struction of religious space serves to materialize dominant ideologies and foster
social inequality.

Mortuary Ritual
Archaeologists have long recognized mortuary interments are partial-
ly the product of ritual actions (see Parker Pearson 2001). As noted by Hawkes
(1954), the very act of burying someone with artifacts implies a belief in the af-
terlife. When dealing with mortuary contexts, a concern with ritual is almost un-
avoidable. For this reason, mortuary archaeologists were among the rst archae-
ologists to seriously investigate religion. Many of these studies examine burials
as the evidence of rites of passage (Turner 1967; Van Gennep 1960). Here the focus
lies on how the living mark the death of a social participant and re-order society
in the absence of the individual. Mortuary ritual in this sense is best understood
in terms of the people who bury the deceased. In terms of the dead, mortuary
rites effect a shift from the world of the living to the afterlife. Liv Nilsson Stutz
(Chapter 9) employs this perspective in her study of a Mesolithic cemetery in
southern Sweden. She argues that the death of an individual leaves society with
two problems: a hole in the social order and a rotting cadaver. For Nilsson Stutz,
mortuary ritual serves to address each of these problems.
Relying on practice theory and ideas of embodiment (Meskell and Joyce
2003), Nilsson Stutz focuses much of her attention on developing careful eld
techniques to identify the types of ritual that were performed on or around the
cadaver. Nilsson Stutz argues that many ritual practices can be recovered through
10 L. Fogelin

careful eldwork that examines taphonomic issues. She employs a French tapho-
nomic approach, anthropologie de terrain (Duday et al. 1990), with strong simi-
larities to William Walkers behavioral perspective on ritual (Walker 1996, 1998,
1999, 2002).
In contrast to the practice-oriented approach of Nilsson Stutz, Barbara Crass
(Chapter 10) and Laneri (Chapter 11) rely heavily on ethnohistorical and his-
torical sources for their interpretations of mortuary features. As discussed above,
Laneri argues that Mesopotamian elite burials employed mythological narra-
tives to legitimize their emerging authority. In contrast, Crass employs extensive
ethnohistorical accounts to interpret the head orientation of pre-Christian Inuit
burials. Specically, Crass nds that the gender uidity common in Inuit myths
is reected in Inuit burials identied archaeologically.

History and Ethnohistory

With only a few exceptions, all of the contributors to this volume rely
on historical or ethnohistorical sources to some degree. Despite the stated de-
sire of several contributors, these sources provide the easiest and best way to
approach archaeological symbols. Even when used to a limited degree, these
sources often provide the initial toehold that allows for other, less symbolically
oriented approaches to proceed. That said, several contributors argue that ar-
chaeologists overly rely on historical and ethnohistorical sources (see also Insoll
2001). Emerson and colleagues (Chapter 12) argue that the overuse of ethnohis-
torical sources promotes a static view of religion that does not account for pro-
cesses of ritualization or change. Nilsson Stutz (Chapter 9) argues against the
idea that all rituals necessarily have symbolic meaning to start with. Rather, she
argues that the meanings ascribed to rituals are often created post hoc. Relying on
a previous study that drew heavily on Midewiwin ethnohistoric sources (Howey
and OShea 2006), Meghan Howey (Chapter 17) asks how much could be learned
about the Missaukee Earthworks site in Michigan had no ethnohistoric sources
been employed. Howey carefully examines each element of her previous study,
determining that much of what she learned through the ethnohistoric sources
could have been gleaned through archaeology alone. In particular, she argues
that many of the ritual practices conducted at the Missaukee Earthworks site
could be identied without recourse to ethnohistoric sources.
Finally, Mark Aldenderfer (Chapter 18) takes a more balanced view on in-
tegrating historical and archaeological sources. He compares his archaeological
research at Piyang, an eleventh-century Buddhist monastery in Tibet, with his-
torical accounts of its origins. Where carbon 14 dating indicates that Piyang was
initially constructed as a small monastery in the eleventh century and signicant-
ly expanded in the fteenth century, some historical sources claim that almost
the entire monastery was constructed in 996 C.E. Rather than reject the historical
sources outright for this mistake, Aldenderfer argues that other elements in the
histories lled in the silences of the archaeological record. Rather than privileg-
ing either historical or archaeological sources, Aldenderfer proposes that these
sources can be played off one another in productive ways.
 Methods for the Archaeology of Religion 11

Conclusion

The chapters within this volume present a wide variety of approaches

to the archaeological investigation of religion and ritual. As such, they can serve
as case studies for other archaeologists interested in delving into religion in their
own research. The diversity of approaches also suggests that there are no simple
programmatic methods to study religion. Any archaeologists approaching the
subject must rst be clear about their theoretical stance on religion and what
data sets are available for study. As for the methods used, while some are more
easily accommodated within one theoretical perspective or another, they are not
strictly determined by theory. There is no contradiction in an archaeologist with
a practice perspective using historic or ethnohistoric sources. While it may be
difcult, there is also no reason prehistorians cannot take a structural approach
to the investigation of ancient symbols. For example, Sabo (Chapter 15) managed
to extract at least some of the meaning of Southeastern rock art motifs through
an examination of their placement in the landscape. Ethnohistoric sources aided
his interpretation, but as in Howeys (Chapter 17) discussion of the Missaukee
Earthworks site, they were not absolutely necessary.
In the past two decades archaeologists have abandoned their reluctance to
study religion. Archaeologists no longer need to justify their studies to a skeptical
discipline. They do, however, need to gure out what methods work, what meth-
ods fail, and what more needs to be done to make archaeological research on reli-
gion stronger and more robust. Religion is difcult to study archaeologically, but
it can be done. The essays in this volume demonstrate that there is no one way to
study ancient religion. In fact, the most successful examinations of religion seem to
be those that investigate the variety of material evidence. Religion impacts, though
perhaps obliquely, many areas of human life. Religion is not something that people
do at only one time or in only one place. By comparing the material traces of religion
in multiple areas, knowledge gained from one data set can be added to by another.
Different theoretical positions and methodological approaches can cumulatively
assist archaeologists in deciphering the religious lives of people in the past.

References
Ascher, Robert
1961 Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
17(4):317325.
Barrett, John C.
1991 Toward an Archaeology of Ritual. In The Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a
Conference on Archaeology, Ritual, and Religion, edited by Paul Garwood, David Jen-
nings, Robin Skeates, and Judith Toms, pp. 19. Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology, Oxford.
Bell, Catherine
1992 Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
1997 Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
12 L. Fogelin

Binford, Lewis R.
1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiq-
uity 31:203210.
Bloch, Maurice
1989 Ritual, History, and Power: Selected Papers in Anthropology. London Schools of
Economics, Monographs on Social Anthropology 58. Athlone, London.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 An Outline of a Theory of Practice, translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Bradley, Richard
2005 Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. Routledge, London.
Brck, J.
1999 Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of Interpretation in European Archae-
ology. European Journal of Archaeology 2:313344.
Carmichael, David L., Jane Hubert, Brian Reeves, and Audhild Schanche (editors)
1994 Sacred Sites, Sacred Spaces. Routledge, London.
Comaroff, Jean
1985 Body of Power, Spirit of Resistance: The Culture and History of a South African Peo-
ple. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Demarest, Arthur A., and Geoffrey W. Conrad
1992 Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations. School of American Research Press,
Santa Fe.
DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis Jamie Castillo, and Timothy K. Earle
1996 Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strategies. Current Anthropology 37:1532.
Duday, Henri, Patrice Courtaud, Eric Crubzy, Pascal Sellier, and Anne-Marie Tillier
1990 LAnthropologie de terrain: Reconnaissance et interprtation des gestes
funraires. In Anthropologie et archologie: Dialogue sur les ensembles funraires, edited
by Eric Crubzy, Henri Duday, Pascal Sellier, and Anne-Marie Tillier, pp. 2950. Bul-
letins et Mmoires de la Socit dAnthropologie de Paris, n.s., 2(3-4).
Durkheim, Emile
1995 [1912] The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, translated and introduced by Kar-
en E. Fields. Free Press, New York.
Fogelin, Lars
2003 Ritual and Presentation in Early Buddhist Religious Architecture. Asian Per-
spectives 42(1).
2006 Archaeology of Early Buddhism. AltaMira, Walnut Creek, California.
2007a The Archaeology of Religious Ritual. Annual Reviews in Anthropology 36:5571.
2007b History, Ethnography, and Essentialism: The Archaeology of Religion and Rit-
ual in South Asia. In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by Evangelos Kyriakidis, pp.
2342. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Fox, John Gerard
1996 Playing with Power: Ballcourts and Political Ritual in Southern Mesoamerica.
Current Anthropology 37:483509.
Fritz, John
1978 Paleopsychology Today: Ideational Systems and Human Adaption in Prehis-
tory. In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited by Charles Redman,
pp. 3760. Academic Press, New York.
Garwood, Paul, David Jennings, Robin Skeates, and Judith Toms (editors)
1991 The Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual, and
Religion. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford.
 Methods for the Archaeology of Religion 13

Geertz, Clifford J.
1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York.
Hawkes, Christopher F.
1954 Archeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from the Old World.
American Anthropologist 56:155168.
Hays, Kelley Ann
1993 When Is a Symbol Archaeologically Meaningful? Meaning, Function, and Pre-
historic Visual Arts. In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda, edited by Norman
Yoffee and Andrew Sherratt, pp. 8192. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Howey, Meghan C. L., and John M. OShea
2006 Bears Journey and the Study of Ritual in Archaeology. American Antiquity
71:261282.
Humphrey, Caroline, and James Laidlaw
1994 The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of
Worship. Oxford Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Inomata, Takeshi, and Lawrence S. Coben (editors)
2006 Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and Politics. AltaMira,
Walnut Creek, California.
Insoll, Timothy
2004 Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. Routledge, London.
Insoll, Timothy (editor)
2001 Archaeology and World Religion. Routledge, London.
Jordan, Peter
2003 Material Culture and the Sacred Landscape: The Anthropology of the Siberian Khanty.
AltaMira, Walnut Creek, California.
Kertzer, David I.
1988 Ritual, Politics, and Power. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Kyriakidis, Evangelos (editor)
2007 Archaeology of Ritual. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Lewis-Williams, J. D.
2002 A Cosmos in Stone: Interpreting Religion and Society Through Rock Art. AltaMira,
Walnut Creek, California.
Marcus, Joyce
1998 Womens Ritual in Formative Oaxaca: Figurine-Making, Divination and the Ances-
tors. Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Valley of Oaxaca 11. Museum of Anthro-
pology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Meskell, Lynn M., and Rosemary A. Joyce
2003 Embodied Lives: Figuring Ancient Maya and Egyptian Experiences. Routledge,
London.
Moore, Jerry D.
1996 Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes: The Archaeology of Public Buildings.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ortman, Scott G.
2000 Conceptual Metaphor in the Archaeological Record: Methods and an Example
from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 65:613645.
Ortner, Sherry B.
1973 On Key Symbols. American Anthropologist 75:13381346.
1989 High Religion: A Cultural and Political History of Sherpa Buddhism. Princeton Uni-
versity Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
14 L. Fogelin

Osborne, Robin (editor)

2004 Object of Dedication. World Archaeology 36(1).
Parker Pearson, Michael
2001 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Texas A&M University Press, College Sta-
tion.
Plunket, Patricia (editor)
2002 Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica. Monograph 46. Costen Institute of Ar-
chaeology, University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Price, Neil (editor)
2001 The Archaeology of Shamanism. Routledge, London.
Renfrew, Colin
1985 The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. Thames and Hudson, Lon-
don.
1994 The Archaeology of Religion. In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Ar-
chaeology, edited by Colin Renfrew and Ezra B. W. Zubrow, pp. 4754. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1983 Toward the Identication of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48:675
706.
1995 Behavioral Archaeology: First Principles. Foundation of Archaeological Inquiry.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Smith, Alexander, and Alison Brooks (editors)
2001 Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to Landscape and Material Culture of Ritual
Space Objects. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Tilley, Christopher Y.
1999 Metaphor and Material Culture. Blackwell, London.
Townsend, Richard F., and Robert V. Sharp (editors)
2004 Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and
South. Art Institute of Chicago and Yale University Press, New Haven.
Turner, Victor W.
1967 Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites of Passage. In The Forest of
Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual, by Victor W. Turner, pp. 93111. Cornell Univer-
sity Press, Ithaca, New York.
Van Gennep, Arnold
1960 The Rites of Passage. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Walker, William H.
1996 Ritual Deposits: Another Perspective. In River of Change: Prehistory of the Middle
Little Colorado River, edited by E. Charles Adams, pp. 7591. University of Arizona,
Tucson.
1998 Where Are the Witches of Prehistory. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
5:245308.
1999 Ritual, Life Histories, and the Afterlives of People and Things. Journal of the
Southwest 41:383405.
2002 Stratigraphy and Practical Reason. American Anthropologist 104:159177.
Whitley, David, and Kelly Hays-Gilpin (editors)
2008 Faith in the Past. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.