Midterm Essay Topic
Archaeology and Religion - AE0201-03 – Fall 2006
Due Date: Thursday October 19 in class (no exceptions)
Instructions:
Please address the following question in an essay not to exceed 2000 words. I
expect that in your essay you will articulate and defend an argument with a clear thesis
and demonstrate the significance of your thesis in terms of the essay question. Be specific
in your use of terminology and employing evidence to support your claims. Such
evidence may include, but certainly is not limited to, quotations from the various readings
which we have had in this course, specific archaeological materials, and ethnographic
accounts of ritual practices.
I expect this paper to be polished and well edited. In your essay you can use
parenthetical citations for any readings from the course [e.g. (Bell 1997: 23)] and do not
have to include them in a bibliography. Should you choose to draw on sources not from the
class readings, make sure to list them in a proper bibliography. However, my expectation is
that you will not need to do any outside reading in order to address this essay topic.
In terms of formatting, please use a readable font and size (e.g. times roman 12),
double space, name, page numbers, standard one inch margins, etc. I want a hard copy
and NOT an electronic version. A title is optional.
Essay Topic:
Colin Renfrew (1994: 49), in his diagram of religion, has located ritual firmly at its
center. He argues that ritual is the principle archaeological object from which to approach
the study of past belief. However, he also notes that the discernment of religious practices
archaeologically requires that past peoples utilized special classes of artifacts and spaces
for their rituals. Compare this, however, to the argument which Insoll puts forward in
which he maintains that religion is not a subordinate category of social life but is, instead,
fully embedded in all social action. Can either of these positions provide a viable
theoretical stance from which to launch archaeological investigations of the sacred in the
social world or the relationships which humans forge with conceptions of the divine? Is
the nature of belief suitable as an archaeological subject or might our investigations be
better served by an understanding of religion as socially constructed, a technology that is
located either in the realm of explicit ideology or psychological false consciousness?
(Think Binford here.)
One way to approach these questions is to consider how archaeologists and others have
sought to draw the line between ritual and everyday practice. What forces outside the
agency of the individual practitioner/worshiper give meaning to such actions so as to
transform them into something we might call religion? Do such actions serve particular
functions? Are they controlled by certain social groups at the expense of others?
As with anything dealing with religion there are no right or wrong answers, just
argumentation. In the Muslim tradition the standard formula for ending a written treatise
is to state: wa Allahu ‘alim – “and only God knows.” What we do is but approximation
and interpretation clothed in claims of orthodoxy and authority. So do your best to make
me a believer.