Apologies for cross posting.
Please find below the abstract for a session we will be holding at this years
TAG conference. Feel free to contact us if you want further details or wish to
give a paper. Also please pass on to any colleagues you think might be
interested.
cheers
Jim
James Morris
Bournemouth University
http://www.tagconference.org/content/beyond-meta-level-explanations-ritual
Beyond Meta-level explanations of ritual
James Morris (Bournemouth University; [log in to unmask]) and
Clare Randall (Bournemouth University; [log in to unmask])
As Hodder (1992, 223) rightly pointed out, archaeologists have at times used
the term ritual for two closely connected reasons, what is observed is non-
functional and is not understood. It could be argued that archaeologists still
use these criteria to define ritual deposits and it is still a much used
explanation.
A quick investigation of archaeological literature would reveal that ritual is a
well used and accepted interpretation of a feature or deposit. As
archaeologists we are at ease in using the term, but very few of us have ever
defined it and those that have, have used concepts such as structured,
repetitive, placed, purposeful, unusual, non-domestic which can be vague and
paradoxical. Perhaps one of the main reasons archaeologists have such a
problem in defining ritual is that many still associate it exclusively with religious
and spiritual beliefs. For example Insoll’s (2004, 11-12) comments that many
archaeologists simply substitute the term ritual for religious and suggests that
ritual needs to be placed within its wider religious framework. However, social
anthropologists have shown there are many different types of rituals. These
can be secular, religious, class-related, sex-related, personal etc (Humphrey
and Laidlaw, 1994). Although rituals are often a part of religious practices,
each has a different meaning and purpose and many secular ones also exist.
Therefore, should we equate ritual with religious?
Handelman (2006) has pointed out that there is a meta-level 'ritual' which
encompasses all ritual activities. In effect, feasting, sacrifice and offering
deposits etc, are all separate ritual acts, which are classified under the
general term 'ritual'. By stating an archaeological feature/artefact was part of
a 'ritual' deposit is only giving a meta-level explanation. It does not explain the
activities or reasons for such deposits. Recently both Brück (1999) and Bradley
(2003) have suggested different ways archaeologists should look at 'ritual' in
an attempt to understand why people are ‘doing things’, In effect attempting
to move beyond meta-level ritual explanations.
This session starts with the assumption that ritual does exist within the
archaeological record (although papers challenging this would be welcome).
However, we propose that we need to move beyond the meta-level use of the
term and aim to explore how this can be achieved. We invite papers covering
any archaeological time period, which use detailed studies of material culture
and the archaeological record to develop detailed explanations for the
archaeology we encounter, rather than generalist explanation of 'ritual'.
Bradley, R. 2003. A life less ordinary: the ritualization of the domestic sphere in
later prehistoric Europe. Cambridge Archaeology Journal, 13:1, 5-23.
Brück, J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in
European archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology, 2, 313-344.
Handelman, D. 2006. Conceptual alternatives to 'ritual'. In. J. Kreinath, J.
Snoek & M. Stausberg (Eds.). Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches,
Concepts. Leiden, Brill, 37-49.
Hodder, I. 1992. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London, Routledge.
Humphrey, C. & Laidlaw, J. 1994. The Archetypal Actions of Ritual. Oxford,
Clarendon Press.
Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London, Routledge.
|