1Beyond Belief: The Archaeology of Religionand Ritual

Yorke M. RowanUniversity of Chicago

ABSTRACT

Until recently, the study of religion and ritual by archaeologists was typically found among those studying world

religions, particularly thosewith the benefit of texts. Building upon a renewed interest in archaeological explorations

of ancient religion and sacred ritual, the authors in this volume construct new understandings of the material forms

of religion through the combination of multiple perspectives and differing methodological approaches. By using

a variety of strategies applied to widely divergent regions and time periods, these scholars demonstrate how the

archaeological study of ancient religion and ritual is methodologically and theoretically valid. [religion, ritual,

materiality, theory, practice]

Despite the long and illustrious history of research intoreligion by social scientists, archaeologists are typi-cally dissatisfied with current theoretical and methodologi-

cal approaches to the study of ancient religion. The objective

of this volume is to offer a step forward in the effort to pro-

duce useful theoretical and methodological approaches to

the archaeological study of religion. In this endeavor, we

join a growing number of scholars exploring new paths to

developing an archaeology of ancient religious belief and

practice.

Is it possible to build connections between theory and

archaeological data despite the complexity of ancient reli-

gious life? What is needed and what this volume attempts

to do is, first, further the process of building methodologies

for middle-range interpretation of ancient religious belief

based on the archaeological evidence and, second, reassert

the importance of the role of religion as an active agent

for continuity and transformation alongside factors such as

environment, the economy, the individual, and so forth. In

order to do so, a definition of religion or ritual was not dic-

tated to contributors, nor was it demanded that contributors

follow a particular methodological approach or theoretical

perspective. Instead, the goal was to highlight perspectives

that engage aspects of materiality over purely theoretical

studies without grounding or connection to material culture.

How might archaeology reveal the spiritual? How can

we hope to illuminate the structure of the immaterial? One

factor working in favor of using archaeological evidence

to understand ancient religious belief is the human need to

materialize the ethereal, to render concrete the immaterial,

and to provide tactility to praxis. Dynamic, continuously

shaped, renegotiated, and sometimes contested, religion is

often expressed through ritual performance. This is mani-

fest in a variety of ways in the archaeological record: ritual

paraphernalia, iconographic representation, or sacred natu-

ral and built space and landscapes. With increased attention

to these concerns the notion that religious belief and practice

may be studied in the past has become more apparent in the

archaeological literature, evident in the recent spate of con-

ferences, volumes, and reviews dedicated to the topic (Bar-

rowclough and Malone 2007; Fogelin 2007a; Insoll 2004a;

Kyriakidis 2007; Whitley and Hays-Gilpin 2008).

These and other studies suggest that archaeology has

the potential to make a unique contribution to the study of

change in religion and ritual practice because of the long-

term view of society it provides. Through such a longue

ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Vol. 21, Issue 1, pp. 110, ISSN 1551-823X,online ISSN 1551-8248. C 2012 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-8248.2012.01033.x.

2 Yorke M. Rowan

duree perspective, an archaeology of religion may provide

insights valuable to ethnographers interested in the material-

ity of ritual practices. Given the difficulty modern ethnogra-

phers face representing modern religious belief and practice,

however, such optimistic statements must be tempered by the

recognition that the full range of complexity of meaning and

belief in the past may never be achieved in many cases.

Establishing more powerful theoretical constructs for

the study of religion is essential because many elements of

life may be structured by religion beyond the typically rec-

ognized archaeological domains of mortuary contexts and

sacred sites. Mortuary beliefs and practices are not the sum

total of religion, and the need for humans to deal with death

is not the sole reason for the existence of religions. Disposal

of human remains typically involves rituals, often rites of

passage (Bell 1997; Turner 1967; Van Gennep 1960), and

numerous studies and synthetic treatments of mortuary rit-

ual are available (Laneri 2007; Pearson 2001; Tarlow 1999;

Williams et al. 2005) and need not be treated in depth here.

The distinction and separation of religion from other in-

stitutions, daily life, and the individual attests to a modern

scholarly perspective, one that led to Asads (1993) critique

of Geertzs (1973) popular definition of religion.1 Rather

than treat religion as a separate analytical category, such as

economy or kinship, these and the many other aspects of

life may be placed within, or viewed through understandings

formed by, religious belief (Insoll 2004a). In other words,

if we wish to come closer to an indigenous emic perspec-

tive, those analytic categories must be reconfigured (Meskell

2004:37).

At the same time, two problematic assumptions un-

derpin such an approach when applied to archaeological

interpretation. One is that the opposite may be true: the as-

sumption that ancient societies are more analogous to tra-

ditional societies than modern ones, and thus likely to be

dominated by religious belief, is not always accurate (Barth

1961; Douglas 1982; Insoll 2004a). Modern secular in-

dustrial societies do not operate independently of religious

belief and practice, and as Fogelin (2007a:60) points out,

any assumption of the universal centrality of religion is

also unwarranted. The second is that the sharp distinction

drawn between sacred and profane common since Durkheim

(1995[1912]) is blurred; particularly for those interested in

small-scale societies or domestic ritual practices (Bradley

2003, 2005), secular and sacred rituals may overlap and oper-

ate within the quotidian. Moreover, places where ritual activ-

ities take place may not categorically exclude more mundane

activitiesthe reverse is true as well (Kyriakidis 2007:17).

Yet if we accept that religious belief may imbue most aspects

of life, the challenge of identifying such ephemeral areas

through material remains leads to pessimistic outlooks for

the future of an archaeology of religion. Perhaps religion

is a concept too large to link directly to specific aspects of

prehistory and archaeological materiality? What then is the

distinction between religion and culture? Do archaeologists

who do not work on literate societies or contact-period sites

have something to contribute to the discussion? The authors

in this volume demonstrate that they do.

The history of research into religion has been summa-

rized elsewhere (e.g., Bowie 2006; Evans-Pritchard 1965;

Morris 1987), and the anthropological study of religion and

ritual extends back to the pioneers of anthropology (e.g.,

Durkheim 1995; Frazer 1990; Hertz 1960; Van Gennep

1960). These discussions suggest that the diversity of re-

ligious belief and practices precludes simple and concise

definition. As a result, achieving a consensus on the defini-

tion of religion, as well as the best methodological and the-

oretical approaches to its study, proves difficult even within

anthropological scholarly research of modern eras. Under-

standably, then, religion as a word and a concept was shunned

by many archaeologists until recentlyif broadly conceived

to encompass all cultural manifestations it seems difficult to

understand how it might help interpret the past. As an al-

ternative, the term ritual is frequently employed, possibly in

the hope of avoiding the ambiguity of a term as vague as

religion. These terms are not interchangeable, however, and

ritual is no less difficult to define (Bell 1997, 2007). All rit-

ual is not sacred, and ritual does not represent the totality of

religious belief (Bell 1997; Bruck 1999), so that ritual is not

solely the performance of religion. Moreover, distinctions

such as sacred versus profane or functional versus ritual be-

havior are not necessarily helpful, or even applicable (Bruck

1999; Kyriakidis 2007; Whitley 1998). Practical and rit-

ual are not so easily separated either, for the performance

of a specific ceremony or creation of a key religious sym-

bol may be eminently practical and functional from an emic

perspective. Making an offering or a votive could be just as

practical as making a tool (Morley 2007:205).

At the same time, secular rituals are common. If we con-

sider ritual as constituted by a set of formal acts that follow

specific rules, then not all ritual is motivated by religious be-

lief (Rappaport 1999:2425). Tambiah defined rituals as

a culturally constructed system of symbolic com-

munication. . . constituted of patterned and ordered se-

quences of words and acts, often expressed in multiple

media, whose content and arrangement are characterized

in varying degree by formality (conventionality), stereo-

typy (rigidity), condensation (fusion) and redundancy

(repetition). [Tambiah 1979:119]

Symbols are often integral to religion and religious ritual

practice, but the study of symbolssymbology, in Victor

Turners termsis difficult without understanding context.

The Archaeology of Religion and Ritual 3

In addition, the multivocality of symbols (Turner 1967) al-

lows a variety of meanings that create the power of a symbol.

To Turner, religious ritual is prescribed behavior not given

over to technical routine, having reference to beliefs in mys-

tical (or non-empirical) beings or powers regarded as the

first and final causes of all effects (Turner 1982:70). This

polysemic quality contradicts the notion that rituals create

stability, or ensure it. Bell (1992) also asserts that ritual

systems do not necessarily act as regulators or controls on

social relationsthey are the system of social relations.

Ritual practice is one that operates like other social prac-

tices. By combining various properties and actions, rituals

are events that remain elusive to archaeologists because of

this inherent complexity (Bloch 1986:181).

Contributors to this volume recognize that ritual is not

equal to religion, although the two are sometimes conflated

in archaeological literature. Such a problematic conceptual-

ization was recognized already at the Sacred and Profane

conference, one of the first convened to explicitly examine

the archaeological investigation of religion (Garwood et al.

1991). Other volumes dedicated to similar topics have fo-

cused exclusively on Europe (Biehl and Bertemes 2001) or

are limited to specific related topics, such as the archaeology

of shamanism (e.g., Price 2001; Price, ed. 2001) or the iden-

tification of sacred places (e.g., Carmichael et al. 1994). Re-

cent volumes on the general topic indicate the resurgence of

interest (Barrowclough and Malone 2007; Kyriakidis 2007;

Smith and Brooks 2001; Whitley and Hays-Gilpin 2008).

Religion is a concept that, in the past, was frequently

divided between those of the primitive people of the world

and those of the world religions (Bowie 2006:26; Edwards

2005:111; Insoll 2004a:8). The former was considered the

province of anthropologists, while the latter fell under the

purview of specialists in the history of religion or com-

parative religion. This division between these two putative

classes of beliefprimitive versus worldoften led to quite

different scholarly treatment, either explicitly or implicitly;

religion of tribal peoples was examined using different ter-

minology of phenomena such as magic, witchcraft, shamans,

and animism while world religions included priests, tem-

ples, and gods. Attempts at further classification have at

times led to typologies with neoevolutionary underpinnings,

and these approaches may correspond to national or schol-

arly traditions (classics, anthropology, Near Eastern stud-

ies). Such a fundamental division between traditional and

world religions continues, wherein archaeologists view

ancient societies as more traditional and, by implication,

less changing, more stable, and static. Assuming such stable

continuity over long periods of time is convenient for archae-

ological interpretation, but ethnography does not necessarily

support such static formulations. More recently, archaeolo-

gists have also challenged presumed continuity of historical

observations into prehistory with little evidential support

(Fogelin 2007b).

There has been a tendency among archaeologists to

use terminology that perpetuates this dichotomy of prim-

itive versus modern religious belief and practice. For in-

stance, terms still in common usage among archaeologists

such as magic and cult (e.g., Gebel et al. 2002; Renfrew

1985, 1994) further underscore an implicit understanding

that these practices represent superstition as opposed to re-

ligion (Insoll 2004a:5; however, see recent comments by

Renfrew 2007:9). Similar criticisms fueled much of the re-

cent debate concerning the use of the term shaman in which

critics suggested that this contributes to a continued, implicit

primitivism or neoevolutionary interpretation (Bahn 2001;

Kehoe 2000). Some might argue that archaeologists have

been guilty of similar essentialist formulations.

With renewed interest in revitalizing a scientific ar-

chaeology, initial processual approaches did not generally

embrace the problem of how archaeology might approach

understanding material evidence for religion. Early pro-

cessual archaeology theorists largely ignored religion as

epiphenomenal, falling within the ideational realm of

paleopsychology (Binford 1965:204; Fritz 1978:38), al-

though there were important early statements concerning

the need for an archaeology of religion (Renfrew 1985). De-

spite initial omission or oversight of religion and ritual, the

more inclusive theoretical perspectives of post-processual

archaeologies, such as the recognition of the archaeologists

subjective role and the role of agency in post-processual

archaeologies, encouraged a contextualized archaeology

(Hodder 1992:245). More recently a shift of focus is appar-

ent and religion, or ritual, is more frequently incorporated

and debated within archaeological circles (Barrowclough

and Malone 2007; Fogelin 2007a; Hays-Gilpin and Whitley

2008; Insoll 2004a, 2004b; Kyriakidis 2007; Renfrew 1994,

2007). Reflecting the more comprehensive rhetoric concern-

ing method and theory that stems from post-processual ar-

chaeologies (Lesure 2005), contributors to this volume draw

on a variety of methodological resources, exhibiting the

theoretical pluralism (Meskell 2001) necessary for robust

archaeology. Thus, the volume does not reflect one specific

overarching theoretical paradigm, nor was one mandated.

Nevertheless, broad theoretical themes are evident in

the contributions to this volume. Concerns with material-

ity are fundamental to most authors, mirroring larger con-

cerns across the discipline and within modern scholarship

in general (e.g., Appadurai 1986; Keane 2008a; Kopytoff

1986; Miller 1987, 2005). The study of material culture is

not equivalent to understanding materiality. Studies of ma-

teriality move beyond empirical analyses of artifact form,

4 Yorke M. Rowan

materials, and manufacture and instead focus on the rela-

tionships between the social and the material; the set of

cultural relationships behind objects is the primary focus

(Meskell 2004). Rather than viewing people as active and

artifacts as passive (Gosden 2005:194), material culture is

now recognized as fundamental to an investigation of agency

in the recognition that any understanding of the past, whether

of social power, ideology, or religion, must be grounded in

the materiality of human life and activity (Dobres and Robb

2005). Even in the ethnographic present, we cannot observe

kinship systems, economic relationships, or religion; these

are theoretical constructs observed through people and their

interactions with each other and material culture (Walker and

Schiffer 2006:70), for it is material culture that constitutes

social relations and allows the creation of meaning (Keane

2008a, 2008b:230). The ongoing recentering of material cul-

ture occurring over the past two decades is thus reflected in

these contributions, and the problems of multiple possible

interpretations are also underscored.

This volume attempts to set aside the perception that

ritual or religion may be separated, or that the former is more

tangible and enduring than the latter. In a recent synthetic

review, Fogelin (2007a) succinctly outlines this dialectical

tension between perspectives on religion and ritual. He notes

that whereas scholars who emphasize the structural elements

of religion highlight the symbolic aspects of ritual, those

interested in ritual practice concentrate on understanding the

past ritual experiences and actions of ritual actors through

material remains (Fogelin 2007a:56). Emphasizing practice

theory (Bell 1992, 1997; Bourdieu 1977; Humphrey and

Laidlaw 1994) archaeologists are drawn by an approach that

stresses human action and ritual. Arguably, the emergence

of, or return to a focus on ritual performance and practice

over structure, in conjunction with emphases on the active

agency of material objects and consumption (Appadurai

1986; Gell 1998; Miller 1995), signals a positive stepwhat

Mitchell refers to as a material culture approach to ritual

performance (Mitchell 2007:336).

Archaeological understandings of such complex phe-

nomena may remain incomplete, and perhaps because of

these inherent difficulties, the study of ancient religion is

frequently entrenched in the particulars of a specific cul-

ture or region. To what extent are these models driven by

the nature of particular examples? Throughout the stud-

ies in this volume, a crucial point remains cogent: specific

cultural context remains a key factor to establishing inter-

pretation, and we should not expect universalistic rules of

materiality outside of practice. In some cultures and so-

cieties, sacred texts are the key instruments at the very

core of religious practice, while in others shamanic or ec-

static experiences form the heart of spiritual matters; in still

others, cultic practice is the norm (Meskell 2004). More-

over, the limitations placed upon understanding prehistoric

ritual through formal classification leads some to reassert

a need to examine life histories of artifacts rather than

rely on formal artifact design to infer function (Appadurai

1986; Kopytoff 1986; Meskell 2004; Miller 1998; Schif-

fer 1972, 1995; Walker 1998). These concerns were estab-

lished long ago through seminal studies of intentional struc-

tured deposits (Bradley 1990; Richards and Thomas 1984;

Walker 1995).

For this volume, sections are defined based on simi-

lar methodological and theoretical approaches, with a final

chapter summarizing the essays. The bulk of the volume

comprises case studies arranged into three main sections.

The first section, Theorizing the Spiritual, includes two

chapters (Kus, Aldenderfer) after the present introduction.

Chapters in this first section share a specific interest in es-

tablishing the linkage between archaeological evidence and

broader constructs, the pragmatic and middle-range theory

that connects material culture with theory. Using a case

study from Madagascar, Kus understands local knowledge

and belief to be embodied in material culture, which serves

as a basis for establishing investigations into the relationship

between local ritual action and place-making. Ethnographic

work by Kus moves beyond cautionary tales and indicates

the materiality of local belief and practices, materiality that

may be made more redundant on a larger scale when made

accessible by the state for a larger audience. Aldenderfer

focuses on pragmatic theoretical and methodological issues

of place-making, practice, and the landscape. Both chapters

consider the relationship between the symbolic content of

local praxis and the relationship to larger political entities.

The second section, Materializing the Spiritual, in-

cludes chapters (Barndon, Blakely, Beck and Brown, Ilan

and Rowan, and Luke) that focus on the understandings of re-

ligion and ritual practices through material culture. Blakely

and Barndon, for instance, concentrate on the communica-

tion of key information through small finds and productive

technology that elaborates on sacred themes. This complex

interplay between hidden or privileged knowledge and the

necessity to disseminate or communicate the possession of

that knowledge in order to demonstrate power and ritual

authority is integral to their analyses; perhaps not coinci-

dentally, both examine the powerful and mysterious role of

metals. Blakelys archaeology of secrecy aims to explicate

the generative nature of prestige for the cult in the political

arena, through the iron rings, whereas Barndon, guided by a

chane operatoire approach, attempts to move beyond the es-

tablished procreative symbolism of traditional African iron

smelting practices to reemphasize the material world in un-

derstanding peoples engagement in and local perceptions

The Archaeology of Religion and Ritual 5

of technological processes and religion. While Blakely and

Barndon approach their case studies from the bottom up

through examination of specific objects and technological

processes, chapters by Beck and Brown and Ilan and Rowan

rely on material culture to investigate the entangled nature

of political economies and religious practices at the level of

polities. In particular, the problems of neoevolutionary typo-

logical classifications, particularly when political economic

types are applied to interpretations of religious practitioners

within middle-range societies, are examined. Specifically

focused on the varieties of ritual practice and experience,

these two essays emphasize how poorly suited such typolo-

gies are to furthering an understanding of religious praxis

in such societies and offer alternative ways of seeing rit-

ual actions and actors in non-state, nonegalitarian societies.

Ilan and Rowan see the order in which our knowledge is

established as formative to the development of explanatory

narratives, arguing that structural regularities emerge that

demand a new, more inclusive narrative that encompasses

previously separated realms of evidence.

Offering a unique perspective on recent landscape stud-

ies (e.g., Basso 1996; Bradley 2000; Knapp and Ashmore

2000; McAnany 1995; Thomas 2001), Luke examines the

complex polysemic variability of place as seen through artis-

tic representations of public, built space and conceptual

landscapes depicted on Late Classic Maya white marble

vases from the Ulua Valley in northwestern Honduras. Con-

struction of spaceswhether household or monumental

was intimately connected to the natural world, and thus the

built environment reflects an effort to ensure engagement

and participation with the ancestral spheres. Her detailed

analysis reveals that Uluan carvers portrayed sacred land-

scapes of local mountainous terrain typically found on ar-

chitectural facades and monuments in the central Mayan

area, creating ritually charged objects that could be gifted

in long-distance exchange as well as used in local perfor-

mances.

This point is one with great relevance to those in the

third section, Experiencing the Spiritual, in which Biehl,

Schoenfelder, and Anderson elaborate on the role material

culture plays to further enhance ritual practices and aid in

experiencing the spiritual. Building upon a range of evi-

dence, from glyptic to architectural, each of the contributors

in this section is particularly interested in the process of sa-

cred crafting and the relationship of the materiality of those

creations to aspects of society writ large. Examining the Ne-

olithic enclosure of Goseck in Germany, Biehl views places

as the focal points for ritual practices that shape experiences

and foster human action. Although enclosing empty space,

he argues, the approach, access, and experience in this sa-

cred space represent a metaphor for seasonal and annual

regularities in peoples own lives, reinforced through com-

munal ritual experiences. In similar fashion but on a different

scale, Schoenfelder has an interest in the experience of rit-

ual performance through the materiality of architecture and

associated remains, which not only define ritual space, but

also embody the relationship to power and legitimizing au-

thority. Schoenfelder relies on indexical signs to recognize

that ritual configurations may reflect group affiliations as

much as they serve as expressions of power and authority.

Combining evidence of inscriptions and indexical meanings

of structures of the candis (temples) at Gunung Kawi, he

argues that rather than reflecting notions of social hierar-

chy, affiliation and relative equality are stressed through the

equivalence of monuments that underscored the importance

of alliances. Schoenfelder and Anderson use very different

forms of material culture, but both are interested in semi-

otic communication. Engaged with discussions of agency

through the incorporation of both the symbolic communica-

tion inherent in glyptic evidence and the contextualization

of the nonsymbolic elements, Anderson emphasizes that

recognizing human decisions behind these manifestations

provides deeper understandings than those based solely on

isolated symbolic expression.

This volume provides archaeological and anthropologi-

cal case studies of ritual practice, religious belief, and sacred

places from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Mediterranean, and

Central, South, and North America. Case studies offer the

discipline an opportunity to move forward not through the

application of theory, but by constituting theory in their own

right (Dobres and Robb 2005:161162). Those included

here approach topics ranging from semiotic understandings

of modern and ancient Balinese temples to evidence for

individual and community ritual practices at Neolithic en-

closures, reflecting the diverse backgrounds and research

topics of these submissions.

Perhaps of necessity, not all theoretical currents are rep-

resented by contributors to this volume; phenomenological

approaches (e.g., Thomas 1996; Tilley 1994) are not the

primary concern of most authors, although Barndon specif-

ically acknowledges such a possible approach to the study

of metalworking among Tanzanian groups and Biehl hints

at similar interests.

Divisions assembled for the volume are not the only

possible configurations given the overlapping themes that

crosscut other methodological or theoretical boundaries. For

example, Kus and Schoenfelder both examine state soci-

eties, but Kus ethnographic insights pertain directly to the

interpretation of non-state, nonegalitarian societies such as

those examined by Beck and Brown as well as Ilan and

Rowan. Alternatively, one could stress the similarity of con-

tributors who examine the tensions between local religious

6 Yorke M. Rowan

belief and praxis, and the attendant material symbols en-

gaged by the larger centralized entities, as studied in vary-

ing degrees by Kus and Blakely. Here, the authors under-

score the dialectic between local ritual practices, places,

and symbols versus the co-optation of those symbols and

domination for the purposes of imperial or state religious

authorities.

Debates concerning belief, ritual, and religion long fo-

cused on the functional aspects through social integration

as first inspired by Durkheim. From an archaeological per-

spective, ritual practice represents a nexus for examining the

intersection of performance, emotion, and belief made man-

ifest through material culture and its context within built and

natural environments. The shift toward greater interest in the

active nature of material culture in the ritual and symbolic

dimensions challenges archaeologists to establish method-

ological approaches despite the futility of expecting to eluci-

date the full meaning(s) of any object or symbolic practice.

No single volume can encompass decades of archaeologi-

cal thinking, but these essays constitute an essential rung in

reinvigorating what Hawkes (1954:161-162) viewed as the

hardest inference of allthose about ancient religious insti-

tutions and spiritual life. The next step is an important one,

building upon the resurgence of interest in the archaeologi-

cal evidence for ancient belief and practices that eventually

led to the diverse religious beliefs, practices, and symbols

witnessed and recorded in historical and ethnographic ac-

counts. As a collection of contributions by archaeologists,

anthropologists, and classicists concerning the methodolog-

ical and theoretical challenges to understanding past belief

and practices, this volume seeks to explore the identifica-

tion of ritual and belief linked to a wider holistic study

and to consider the implications of an archaeology of past

belief.

Note

1. According to Geertz, A religion is: (1) a system of

symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and

long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formu-

lating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4)

clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality

that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic

(Geertz 1973:90).

References

Appadurai, Arjun, ed.

1986 The Social Life of Things. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Asad, Talal

1993 Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons

of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore,

MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bahn, Paul

2001 Save the Last Trance for Me: An Assess-

ment of the Misuse of Shamanism in Rock

Art Studies. In The Concept of Shamanism:

Uses and Abuses. H.-P. Francfort and R. N.

Hamayon, eds. Pp. 5194. Budapest: Akademiai

Kiado.

Barrowclough, David A., and Caroline Malone, eds.

2007 Cult in Context: Reconsidering Ritual in

Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow.

Barth, F.

1961 Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri Tribe

of the Khamseh Confederacy. Boston: Little,

Brown.

Basso, Keith H.

1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on a Western

Apache Landscape. In Senses of Place. S. Feld and

Keith H. Basso, eds. Pp. 5390. Sante Fe, NM:

School of American Research.

Bell, Catherine

1992 Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York:

Oxford University Press.

1997 Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New

York: Oxford University Press.

2007 Response: Defining the Need for a Defini-

tion. In The Archaeology of Ritual. Evangelos

Kyriakidis, ed. Pp. 277288. Los Angeles: Cotsen

Institute of Archaeology.

Biehl, Peter F., and Francois Bertemes, eds.

2001 The Archaeology of Cult and Religion. Bu-

dapest: Archaeolingua.

Binford, Lewis

1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of

Culture Process. American Antiquity 31:203

210.

Bloch, Maurice

1986 From Blessing to Violence: History and Ide-

ology in the Circumcision Ritual of the Merina of

Madagascar. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

The Archaeology of Religion and Ritual 7

Bourdieu, Pierre

1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Bowie, Fiona

2006 The Anthropology of Religion. 2nd edition.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Bradley, Richard

1990 The Passage of Arms: An Archaeological

Analysis of Prehistoric Hoards and Votive

Deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places. London:

Routledge.

2003 A Life Less Ordinary: The Ritualization of

the Domestic Sphere in Later Prehistoric Eu-

rope. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13:5

23.

2005 Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Eu-

rope. London: Routledge.

Bruck, Joanna

1999 Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of

Interpretation in European Archaeology. European

Journal of Archaeology 2:313344.

Carmichael, David L., Jane Hubert, Brian Reeves, and

Audhild Schanche, eds.

1994 Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Rout-

ledge.

Dobres, Marcia-Anne, and John E. Robb

2005 Doing Agency: Introductory Remarks on

Methodology. Journal of Archaeological Method

and Theory 12(3):159166.

Douglas, Mary

1982 Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology.

New York: Pantheon.

Durkheim, Emile

1995 [1912] The Elementary Forms of Religious

Life. Karen E. Fields, trans. New York: Free Press.

Edwards, D. N.

2005 The Archaeology of Religion. In The Ar-

chaeology of Identity. M. Diaz-Andreu, S. Lucy,

S. Babic, and D. N. Edwards, eds. Pp. 110128.

London: Routledge.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E.

1965 Theories of Primitive Religion. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Fogelin, Lars

2007a The Archaeology of Religious Ritual. Annual

Review of Anthropology 36:5571.

2007b History, Ethnography, and Essentialism: The

Archaeology of Religion and Ritual in South

Asia. In The Archaeology of Ritual. Evangelos

Kyriakidis, ed. Pp. 2342. Los Angeles: Cotsen

Institute of Archaeology.

Frazer, James G.

1990 [1890] The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and

Religion. London: Macmillan.

Fritz, John

1978 Paleopsychology Today: Ideational Systems

and Human Adaptation in Prehistory. In Social

Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dat-

ing. C. Redman, ed. Pp. 3760. New York:

Academic.

Garwood, Paul, Peter Jennings, Robin Skeates, and Judith

Toms, eds.

1991 Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Con-

ference on Archaeology, Ritual, and Religion.

Oxford University Committee for Archaeology,

Monograph 32. Oxford: Oxbow.

Gebel, H. G. K., B. D. Hermansen, and C. H. Jensen, eds.

2002 Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near East-

ern Neolithic. Studies in Early Near Eastern

Production, Subsistence, and Environment, 8.

Berlin: ex oriente.

Geertz, Clifford B.

1973 The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Es-

says. New York: Basic Books.

Gell, Alfred

1998 Art and Agency: Anthropological Theory.

Oxford: Clarendon.

Gosden, Chris

2005 What Do Objects Want? Journal of Ar-

chaeological Method and Theory 12(3):193

211.

8 Yorke M. Rowan

Hawkes, Christopher

1954 Archeological Theory and Method: Some

Suggestions from the Old World. American

Anthropologist 56:155168.

Hertz, Robert

1960 [1907] A Contribution to the Study of the

Collective Representation of Death. In Death and

the Right Hand. R. Needham and C. Needham,

trans. New York: Free Press.

Hodder, Ian

1992 Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London:

Routledge.

Humphrey, Caroline, and James Laidlaw

1994 The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory

of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Wor-

ship. Oxford Studies in Social and Cultural

Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Insoll, Timothy

2004a Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London: Routledge.

2004b Belief in the Past. The Proceedings of the

2002 Manchester Conference on Archaeology and

Religion. BAR International Series, 1212. Oxford:

British Archaeological Reports.

Keane, Webb

2008a The Evidence of the Senses and the Materiality

of Religion. Journal of the Royal Anthropological

Institute 14(1):110127.

2008b On the Materiality of Religion. Material Re-

ligion: The Journal of Objects, Art and Belief

4(2):230231.

Kehoe, Alice B.

2000 Shamans and Religion: An Anthropological

Exploration in Critical Thinking. Long Grove, IL:

Waveland.

Knapp, A. Bernard, and Wendy Ashmore

2000 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed,

Conceptualized, Ideational. In Archaeolo-

gies of Landscape. Wendy Ashmore and A.

Bernard Knapp, eds. Pp. 130. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Kopytoff, Igor

1986 The Cultural Biography of Things: Com-

moditization as Process. In The Social

Life of Things. Arjun Appadurai, ed. Pp.

6491. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Kyriakidis, Evangelos, ed.

2007 The Archaeology of Ritual. Los Angeles:

Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

Laneri, Nicola, ed.

2007 Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funer-

ary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and

Mediterranean. Oriental Institute Seminars 3.

Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Lesure, Richard G.

2005 Linking Theory and Evidence in an Archae-

ology of Human Agency: Iconography, Style, and

Theories of Embodiment. Journal of Archaeologi-

cal Method and Theory 12(3):237255.

McAnany, Patricia

1995 Living with the Ancestors: Kinship to King-

ship in Ancient Maya Society. Austin: University

of Texas Press.

Meskell, Lynn

2001 Archaeologies of Identity. In Archaeological

Theory Today. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 187213.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.

2004 Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material

Biographies Past and Present. New York: Berg.

Miller, Daniel

1987 Material Culture and Mass Consumption.

Oxford: Blackwell.

1995 Consumption and Commodities. Annual Re-

view of Anthropology 19:453505.

2005 Materiality. Durham, NC: Duke University

Press.

Miller, Daniel, ed.

1998 Material Cultures: Why Some Things Mat-

ter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mitchell, Jon P.

2007 Towards an Archaeology of Performance.

In Cult in Context: Reconsidering Ritual

in Archaeology. David A. Barrowclough

and Caroline Malone, eds. Pp. 336339.

Oxford: Oxbow.

The Archaeology of Religion and Ritual 9

Morley, Ian

2007 Time, Cycles and Ritual Behaviour. In Cult

in Context: Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology.

David A. Barrowclough and Caroline Malone,

eds. Pp. 205209. Oxford: Oxbow.

Morris, Brian

1987 Anthropological Studies of Religion: An Intro-

ductory Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Pearson, M. P.

2001 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Col-

lege Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Price, Neil

2001 An Archaeology of Altered States: Shaman-

ism and Material Culture Studies. In The

Archaeology of Shamanism. N. Price, ed. Pp.

316. New York: Routledge.

Price, Neil, ed.

2001 The Archaeology of Shamanism. New York:

Routledge.

Rappaport, Roy A.

1999 Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Renfrew, Colin

1985 The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at

Phylakopi. The British School of Archaeology at

Athens, suppl. 18. London.

1994 The Archaeology of Religion. In The An-

cient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology.

Colin Renfrew and Ezra B. W. Zubrow, eds.

Pp. 4754. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

2007 Ritual and Cult in Malta and Beyond: Tradi-

tions of Interpretation. In Cult in Context. David

Barrowclough and Caroline Malone, eds. Pp.

813. Oxford: Oxbow.

Richards, C., and J. Thomas

1984 Ritual Activity and Structured Deposition in

Later Neolithic Wessex. In Neolithic Studies: A

Review of Some Current Research. R. Bradley and

J. Gardiner, eds. Pp. 189218. BAR British Series,

133. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Schiffer, Michael B.

1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Con-

text. American Antiquity 37:156165.

1995 Behavioral Archaeology: First Principles. Salt

Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Smith, Alexander, and Alison Brooks, eds.

2001 Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to

Landscape and Material Culture of Ritual Space

Objects. BAR International Series, S956. Oxford:

Archaeopress.

Tambiah, Stanley J.

1979 A Performative Approach to Ritual. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Tarlow, Sarah

1999 Bereavement and Commemoration: An Ar-

chaeology of Mortality. Oxford: Blackwell.

Thomas, Julian S.

1996 Time, Culture and Identity: An Interpretive

Archaeology. London: Routledge.

2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In

Archaeological Theory Today. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp.

165186. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tilley, Christopher

1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths

and Monuments. London: Berg.

Turner, Victor W.

1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu

Ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

1982 From Ritual to Theater and Back: The Human

Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ Publications.

Van Gennep, Arnold

1960 [1909] The Rites of Passage. Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press.

Walker, William H.

1995 Ceremonial Trash? In Expanding Archaeol-

ogy. J. M. Skibo, William H. Walker, and A. E.

Nielsen, eds. Pp. 6779. Salt Lake City: University

of Utah Press.

1998 Where Are the Witches of Prehistory? Jour-

nal of Archaeological Method and Theory

5(3):245308.

10 Yorke M. Rowan

Walker, William H., and Michael B. Schiffer

2006 The Materiality of Social Power: The

Artifact-Acquisition Perspective. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 13(2):67

88.

Whitley, David S.

1998 New Approaches to Old Problems. In Reader

in Archaeological Theory. D. S. Whitley, ed.

Pp. 128. London: Routledge.

Whitley, David S., and Kelley Hays-Gilpin

2008 Belief in the Past: Theoretical Approaches to

the Archaeology of Religion. Walnut Creek, CA:

Left Coast Press.

Williams, S. R., G. F. M. Rakita, F. M. Rakita, and Jane E.

Buikstra, eds.

2005 Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on

Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium.

Gainesville: University Press of Florida.