Religion is now regarded as the most underdeveloped field within archaeology. While efforts have been made to correct this through the development of various theories, none have been perfected. As a result, archaeology has no theory of religion, and archaeologists are unsure as to how to approach it. Therefore, archaeological reconstruction of belief systems of peoples from the past is improbable in the near future. This concept will firstly be established through the exploration of personal bias, and how this can negatively impact archaeological reconstruction. Additionally, the incorrect categorization of archaeological context will be developed. Finally, archaeologists have been researching individual aspects of religion, instead of pertaining a holistic approach. This has produced insufficient methodological processes. The concept will then be further enhanced within three relevant case studies; the excavations of Jericho, Great Zimbabwe, and three Natufian sites.
Humans are biased toward their personal context, and archaeologists are not indifferent to this; they are often subject to their interpretation within archaeology. When approaching an excavation, archaeologists must endeavor to maintain an unbiased mindset, otherwise the findings may be appropriated to fit their viewpoint. An example of this is found within the outdated approach to archaeology known as Biblical archaeology, transpiring primarily throughout the nineteenth century. “A shovel in one hand, and a Bible in the other…” This quote demonstrates the influential approach to past belief systems often found within Biblical archaeology. It maintains relevance in present context seen throughout the Jericho excavation.
When Biblical archaeologists unearthed the ancient city of Jericho, they discovered through carbon dating that the city was abandoned during the period implied within the Bible. Biblical archaeologist, Kathleen Kenyon was “saddened” by this, underlining her obvious bias. While this does not portray her as hindering archaeological advancement in order to prove her personal beliefs, ten years later she published a second report on the excavation attempting to associate the ancient city with Biblical record again.
One of the more relevant associations Kenyon makes within the report is the cause of the city’s destruction; fire. Excavations proved that Jericho’s destruction was caused by fire, and this has since been accepted by archaeological report. The fire provides further evidence regarding the existence of civilization during the Biblical dates, through radiocarbon testing of blackened seeds originating from the Jericho excavation.
The seeds are an estimated 3,311 years old, and while the radiocarbon data cannot be directly translated into a calendar date, they are estimated to be dated at 1580BC. Skindrud’s insinuation that these dates are relative to that of the Bible is more opinionated that the findings displayed by Kenyon. While he does put forth additional archaeological information, he does not acknowledge it. Firstly, the dates are not exact, and while an estimated thirteen-year difference may seem trivial within archaeology, it is not close enough to confirm that the civilization was populated during the time indicated by the Bible. Additionally, this date is also noticeably close to the volcanic eruption on the Aegean island of Thera which could similarly account for the destruction of Jericho, in substitution to the Biblical explanation.
In comparison to this, Bar-Yosef opposes Kenyon’s perspective, providing examples where she has been inaccurate in her judgements. The mistakes she made were regarding information that was both archaeologically crucial, and simplistic. Furthermore, he highlights consequential questions that Kenyon ignored in her report, reiterating that she is a Biblical archaeologist, allowing her personal bias to obscure her interpretation of the findings.
However, some archaeologists believe that Kenyon’s findings have paved the way for the development of new religious ideas. To an extent this is an accurate statement as she has introduced relevant discrepancy within archaeological report. Nonetheless she remains untrustworthy as an archaeologist due to her obvious bias. Therefore, approaches such as Biblical archaeology must be called into question as they can negatively impact accuracy of archaeological record, and thus the reconstruction of past belief systems.
Archaeologists frequently approach archaeological excavations with an absence of knowledge regarding the religion. They often replace specific societal information with a general belief that all context excavated by archaeologists is used for religious activities. This is an inaccurate assumption. Structures excavated such as temples were often used in relation to religion, however their sole purpose was not necessarily dedicated to religious activities. They were additionally used for festivals, government meetings, storage of legal records, banking, commerce, libraries, and museums. Furthermore, archaeologists need to develop their understanding regarding a society in order to further their understanding of the religion within the society. This is due to the impact an individual’s religious interaction can have on the material culture. Often it provides more information regarding the religion than context is able to provide.
Without background information of the culture, it is challenging for an archaeologist to understand the intricate details of the belief system. These include why people believed it, what it meant to them, and what the religion entailed. Archaeological evidence is unable to reconstruct past religions. It is only able to provide insight into how religiosity develops in relation to economy and society, as underlined by Whitehouse. The religion of the Great Zimbabwe kingdom is relevant to this. While archaeological and ethnographical evidence enhanced research, most of what archaeologists understand about this site originates from the Karanga culture. The recognition and ritualistic behaviours connected to ancestor spirits that is practiced by the Karanga religion is paralleled within that of the Great Zimbabwe culture.
This is firstly explored through their comprehension of why the chief was distinctly separated from the people. The geographical distance between the chief and the people indicated to archaeologists that there was an aspect of importance placed upon him, however it was the Karanga who were able to specify exactly what this was. As in Karanga religion, the chief’s ancestors were vital as they were able to influence rain, wealth, fertility, and balance. Furthermore, within the Eastern enclosure six carved soapstone birds were found. The soapstone carvings required full knowledge of their archaeological contexts and interpretation. Due to archaeological mishandling a major aspect of the context relating to the soapstone carvings has been lost, limiting archaeological understanding regarding the carvings. The relevance of the carvings was only obtained through the Karanga culture, as in Karanga oral tradition birds are considered messengers who carry information between the ancestors and their living descendants. Therefore, archaeologists limited archaeological comprehension of the Great Zimbabwean religion as they approached the society with limited background knowledge. It was only through the Karanga society’s insight that they were able to obtain an in depth understanding. This limitation negatively impacts archaeological reconstruction of past belief systems.
Religion is the unification of symbols, belief systems, and rituals within a given society. Archaeologists have focused on individually researching these aspects of religion, rather than investigating religion with a holistic perspective. This has caused an insufficiency of methodological processes. There are currently only two principal methodological theories designed to approach religion in a society. The first is a scientific model, for which there is an increased demand. However, this is still in the development stage. It includes elements of psychology, sociocultural anthropology, and religious studies.
The second methodological approach is H. Whitehouse’s, who disagrees with the prior mentioned scientific model. He states that the approach “appeals more to anthropologists”. Whitehouse’s model is cognitively based, and instead separates the diversity of religious practices into two modes of human memory; the imagistic mode, and the doctrinal mode. In doing so, it breaks down the complexity of religion. The imagistic mode draws on episodic memory, and proposes that the first first religions to have appeared were imagistic in nature, as demonstrated through cave paintings. In comparison, the doctrinal mode is based on semantic memory, and relies on the depersonalization of religious experiences. It was developed through the introduction of literary societies. This is a relevant model to introduce to the archaeological studies of religion as it provides archaeology with a way of standardizing the findings, which it is currently requiring. However, S. Mithen disagrees with this model. He suggests that certain periods are too spread out to be reconstructed by a singular theory, though does admit that the theory does allow archaeologists to enrich specific archaeological interpretations.
Furthermore, Whitehouse’s model fails in relation to preliterate societies, which did not use the imagistic mode as they were too spread out, yet followed the same religion. An example of this is the Nafutian hunter-gatherer societies within Ed Wad, ‘Ain Mallaha, and Hayonim Cave. Within these excavations social and political reasoning have been discussed by scholars. Comparatively, religious connotations have had little mention as they are unable to explain these aspects of the society. S. Mithen suggests that there must have been some aspect of religion or belief system within the society to differentiate between life and death as 25% of the burials held grave goods.
This is not necessarily accurate. The burials instead infer strong emotional bonds between primates, not due to religion or a belief system, but rather out of respect. There was a mutual assistance dependence seen between age groups which exceeds that of other primates. Correspondingly, the evidence of ritual following a system within the art works are probably unique as there are no repeated examples from this time. Instead, it is likely example of cognitive development leading toward the formation of a belief system without actually forming one, as societies after the early Natufian’s followed aspects of their rituals.
In defense of his model Whitehouse underlines that religious reconstruction is a complex task, even when focusing on a sole time period from a singular society. Furthermore, he highlights that “as long as variables conform to patterns of a relationship that the theory predicts…” the model works. Therefore, even the minimal methodological theories that archaeology does have to approach religion falter, preventing religious reconstruction.
Conclusively, archaeologists have become lazy in their approach to religion. When they do not have an explanation for an aspect of a society founded in their excavations they evaluate it as being religious, deeming it too complex for further research. Additionally, they are allowing their personal bias to influence archaeological findings regarding religion. Furthermore, they are confusing what religion can actually be defined as. They mention rituals, symbols, and belief systems as being equivalent to religion. Finally, few archaeologists are endeavoring to create new methodological concepts to provide a framework for approaches to religion. Therefore, archaeological approaches to religion remain the most underdeveloped field within archaeology. If archaeological reconstruction of past belief systems is to be probable, archaeologists need to open a scholarly debate, as well as question the findings of fellow archaeologists. Otherwise, it will remain a complex and underdeveloped field within archaeological research.
2016-11-2-1478059094