Moderator
Dr. Bettina Arnold and Dr. Derek Counts
Location
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Start Date
6-4-2013 3:30 PM
End Date
6-4-2013 4:45 PM
Abstract
At the risk of slipping into “unscientific” territory, archaeology tends to frequently avoid building theory and methodology capable of discussing the role, intent, and function of prehistoric ritual and religion, all the while vacillating between rival secular models of power and ideology within groups. This paper contends that discussion of power and ideology must invariably include hypotheses regarding ritual and religion and offers both Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük as interesting case studies in that they seem to contain not only symbolic connections to each other, but also represent temporal and spatial advancement within a “pre-agriculture” and “pre-religion.” This paper attempts to analyze the material culture—architectural and symbolic forms—at both Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük from archeological and memetic perspectives. Using these sites as case studies may offer a ground-level entry into a cautiously scientific methodological analysis of religion, both inter-disciplinarily and extra-disciplinarily.
The nature of ritual and religion is hidden—though to be sure, ritualistic emanations are physically abundant in the arts, linguistics and symbology. It thus becomes difficult to debate the source, intent, and function of the phenonema of religion and its varied ritualistic manifestations. The relativistic and invisible characteristics of ritual and religion have compartmentalized scientific inquiry into several disciplines. Though we may know from present forms and from historical sources that religious ideologies shape culture and intersect in some capacity with notions of power within groups, an exact definition of the role of ritual and religion in these senses remains elusive.
Religion is pervasive throughout human culture, and historically we glimpse both its structures and philosophies as taking many guises and spawning a multitude of ideologies that have been known to, in some cases, produce powerful political entities and cultural movements. The ubiquity of religion within culture is well attested archaeologically; evidence has yet to come forth showing an ancient culture that does not practice some form of religion (Burkert 1996:1). Indeed, anthropologists often use religion, language, and art as prerequisites for defining “complex” societies. There is, however, growing evidence from the fields of psychology and biology that the universality of these three criteria may be as closely linked to evolutionary theory as it is to cultural evolution (in its broadest sense); future research may find anthropology, biology, and psychology beginning to work in a triumvirate fashion (Burkert 1996:xii).
There seems to be a reticence on the part of archaeologists to discuss religion in terms that are outside of the functional, in a sense of creating blind obedience (religion as opiate), or socioeconomic regulation (religion as police force). Viewing religion in these contexts is attractive archaeologically as we require a certain amount of hard data from material culture, and the economic, legal, and coercive functions of religion are often more visible in these contexts than its primary institution. While religion may be usefully co-opted (as it often is), viewing it as “secularly” functional in these regards creates a one-dimensional and ahistorical perspective of the role of religion and human spiritual thought—religion must be believed before it is able to function in other capacities. To view it primarily in terms of its secular functionality robs religion and ritual of its deep history, a history which is monumentally abundant in sites such as Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük.
When we speak about religion, generally we are speaking of “complex religion,” which is highly formalized, replete with a priest-class, and hierarchical structure. However, this paper does not attempt to discuss “complex religion” as described, but rather a “pre-religion” which in this paper should be understood as “a semi-formal way in which human beings attempt to locate themselves within the natural environment and the cosmos ‘before the emergence of doctrinal and theistic religions’” (Renfrew 2011:915). Agriculture and domestication, like “complex religion,” did not come about unrehearsed, but were slowly worked over long periods before they appeared in historical and archaeological contexts. Perhaps the widespread use of agriculture contributed to themes found in “complex religion” but both systems grew independently of each other in some ways, yet inextricably in others. Evidence for this complex interplay can be seen throughout time within the Levant, starting at Göbekli Tepe, the earliest known site of complex human social organization.
Included in
In Your Wildest Memes: Toward A Cooperative Methodology of Pre-Religion and Ritual
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
At the risk of slipping into “unscientific” territory, archaeology tends to frequently avoid building theory and methodology capable of discussing the role, intent, and function of prehistoric ritual and religion, all the while vacillating between rival secular models of power and ideology within groups. This paper contends that discussion of power and ideology must invariably include hypotheses regarding ritual and religion and offers both Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük as interesting case studies in that they seem to contain not only symbolic connections to each other, but also represent temporal and spatial advancement within a “pre-agriculture” and “pre-religion.” This paper attempts to analyze the material culture—architectural and symbolic forms—at both Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük from archeological and memetic perspectives. Using these sites as case studies may offer a ground-level entry into a cautiously scientific methodological analysis of religion, both inter-disciplinarily and extra-disciplinarily.
The nature of ritual and religion is hidden—though to be sure, ritualistic emanations are physically abundant in the arts, linguistics and symbology. It thus becomes difficult to debate the source, intent, and function of the phenonema of religion and its varied ritualistic manifestations. The relativistic and invisible characteristics of ritual and religion have compartmentalized scientific inquiry into several disciplines. Though we may know from present forms and from historical sources that religious ideologies shape culture and intersect in some capacity with notions of power within groups, an exact definition of the role of ritual and religion in these senses remains elusive.
Religion is pervasive throughout human culture, and historically we glimpse both its structures and philosophies as taking many guises and spawning a multitude of ideologies that have been known to, in some cases, produce powerful political entities and cultural movements. The ubiquity of religion within culture is well attested archaeologically; evidence has yet to come forth showing an ancient culture that does not practice some form of religion (Burkert 1996:1). Indeed, anthropologists often use religion, language, and art as prerequisites for defining “complex” societies. There is, however, growing evidence from the fields of psychology and biology that the universality of these three criteria may be as closely linked to evolutionary theory as it is to cultural evolution (in its broadest sense); future research may find anthropology, biology, and psychology beginning to work in a triumvirate fashion (Burkert 1996:xii).
There seems to be a reticence on the part of archaeologists to discuss religion in terms that are outside of the functional, in a sense of creating blind obedience (religion as opiate), or socioeconomic regulation (religion as police force). Viewing religion in these contexts is attractive archaeologically as we require a certain amount of hard data from material culture, and the economic, legal, and coercive functions of religion are often more visible in these contexts than its primary institution. While religion may be usefully co-opted (as it often is), viewing it as “secularly” functional in these regards creates a one-dimensional and ahistorical perspective of the role of religion and human spiritual thought—religion must be believed before it is able to function in other capacities. To view it primarily in terms of its secular functionality robs religion and ritual of its deep history, a history which is monumentally abundant in sites such as Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük.
When we speak about religion, generally we are speaking of “complex religion,” which is highly formalized, replete with a priest-class, and hierarchical structure. However, this paper does not attempt to discuss “complex religion” as described, but rather a “pre-religion” which in this paper should be understood as “a semi-formal way in which human beings attempt to locate themselves within the natural environment and the cosmos ‘before the emergence of doctrinal and theistic religions’” (Renfrew 2011:915). Agriculture and domestication, like “complex religion,” did not come about unrehearsed, but were slowly worked over long periods before they appeared in historical and archaeological contexts. Perhaps the widespread use of agriculture contributed to themes found in “complex religion” but both systems grew independently of each other in some ways, yet inextricably in others. Evidence for this complex interplay can be seen throughout time within the Levant, starting at Göbekli Tepe, the earliest known site of complex human social organization.
