ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6

The Archaeology
of Religious Ritual
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Lars Fogelin
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Albion College, Albion, Michigan 49224;
email: LFogelin@Albion.edu
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007. 36:55–71 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on structure, practice, power, symbolism
April 24, 2007

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract

anthro.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:
10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094425
Copyright  c 2007 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
0084-6570/07/1021-0055$20.00
Archaeologists traditionally assumed that rituals were understood
best in light of religious doctrines, beliefs, and myths. Given the
material focus of archaeology, archaeologists believed that ritual was
a particularly unsuitable area for archaeological inquiry. In the past
25 years, archaeologists have increasingly started to address ritual in
their research. Some archaeologists with access to extensive histori-
cal or ethnohistorical sources continue to see rituals as the enactment
of religious principles or myths. Other archaeologists have adopted
a more practice-oriented understanding of ritual, arguing that ritual
is a form of human action. In emphasizing ritual practice, archaeol-
ogists reject a clear dichotomy between religious and nonreligious
action or artifacts, focusing instead on the ways that the experience
of ritual and ritual symbolism promotes social orders and dominant
ideologies.

55
 ANRV323-AN36-04
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.
ARI 13 August 2007 17:6
INTRODUCTION
Archaeologists studying religion often focus
on ritual. The reason for this focus is straight-
forward. There is a widespread archaeological
understanding that ritual is a form of human
action that leaves material traces, whereas re-
ligion is a more abstract symbolic system con-
sisting of beliefs, myths, and doctrines. This
common understanding does not mean, how-
ever, that all archaeologists approach the study
of ritual in the same way. Although many agree
that ritual is a form of action or behavior, sig-
nificant differences can be found in how ar-
chaeologists conceive of the relationship be-
tween religion and ritual. Some archaeologists
see religion as primary, with ritual enacting
underlying religious beliefs. Others see ritual
as primary. Here the symbolic meanings of rit-
uals are downplayed; rather the specifics of re-
ligious belief conform to rituals that lie at the
heart of things. In both cases, archaeologists
create a simple dichotomy between religion
and ritual, belief and action. As such, the now-
standard anthropological debates concerning
structure and agency are front and center in
the study of ancient ritual and religion (Barrett
2001, Dobres & Robb 2000). Whichever per-
spective archaeologists employ, most recog-
nize that a dialectic exists between ritual and
religion; aspects of one are necessarily related
to aspects of the other. Ritual elements can be
used to infer belief systems, just as knowledge
of the mythology of a particular society can
be used to investigate its rituals.
Generally an orientation toward either
structure or practice guides archaeologists’
thinking about ritual. For the most part, ar-
chaeologists who emphasize the structural el-
ements of religion focus on the symbolic as-
pects of ritual, often by using historical or
ethnohistorical sources. In contrast, those ar-
chaeologists who emphasize ritual practice
in their analyses tend to focus on the ways
that material remains can inform on the ac-
tions and experiences of past ritual partici-
pants. That said, archaeological materials re-
lating to religion and ritual are fragmentary.
56 Fogelin
Some archaeologists who have only material
remains to investigate ritual still employ struc-
tural assumptions concerning the primacy of
myth and belief, whereas others who examine
mythology or ethnohistory are also enthusi-
astic advocates of the ritual primacy over re-
ligion. Each of these different permutations
of archaeological research on ritual has dif-
ferent interpretive strengths and weaknesses;
each is discussed below. First, however, it is
important to examine the foundational con-
cepts in which archaeologists rely in their
analyses. In studying ancient ritual, archaeol-
ogists have appropriated many of their foun-
dational understandings from cultural anthro-
pology, religious studies, and sociology. In the
process, archaeologists have been forced to
develop material implications from what are,
for the most part, more intangible theoretical
perspectives.
RITUAL AND RELIGION:
THEORIES AND DEFINITIONS
In the nineteenth and early twentieth cen-
turies an academic debate formed within re-
ligious studies over the primacy of religion
or ritual. Whereas some argued for the his-
torical primacy of ritual (Frazer 1955[1911],
Robertson Smith 1969[1889]), others ar-
gued that myths preceded rituals (Müller
1967[1861]). For the most part, these debates
rested on fanciful reconstructions of the dis-
tant past, with theoretical positions determin-
ing historical narratives. Archaeological data
were kept out of it, and few archaeologists
took up the challenge of sorting out the ori-
gins of religion and ritual (but see Mithen
1998, Tattersall 1998). Over time, religion and
ritual have come to be understood in more
dialectical terms, with historical primacy no
longer serving as a proxy for importance (see
Kluckhohn 1942). However, the old debates
over myth and ritual serve to illustrate a cen-
tral divide in the study of religion and ritual
that exists to this day. Although no serious
scholar in any discipline argues that ritual or
 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6
religion is completely determinative of the
other, different scholars tend to emphasize
one over the other. These differences in em-
phasis lead to important differences in ap-
proaching the study of religion and ritual.
Religion
Geertz (1973), from a structural perspective,
argued that
[r]eligion is a system of symbols which acts
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
to establish powerful, pervasive, and long
lasting moods and motivations in men by
formulating conceptions of a general order
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.
of existence and clothing these conceptions
with such an aura of factuality that the moods
and motivations seem uniquely realistic.
(p. 90)
The emphasis here lies on belief and the
meaning of symbols—the manner in which
belief serves to instill in people a sense of
where they belong in the universe. Rituals,
in this conception, serve to enact or promote
symbolic meanings in a format that can be eas-
ily understood by the masses. As phrased by
Wallace (1966, p. 102), “ritual is religion in
action; it is the cutting edge of the tool . . . It
is ritual that accomplishes what religion sets
out to do.” In this formulation, ritual is a form
of human action determined or shaped by un-
derlying religious views.
Of particular importance to a structural-
ist perspective is the idea that religion is a
particularly stable and long-lasting cultural
phenomenon. If religion is a relatively sta-
ble phenomenon and ritual is the enactment
of religious principles, then rituals must also
be relatively stable over time. Thus, rituals
are a particularly anachronistic element of hu-
man societies (Bloch 1977, 1986; Connerton
1989). Just as many Christians continue to
use the King James Bible, many societies con-
tinue to engage in rituals that employ archaic
speech or actions. This is perhaps best illus-
trated in Bloch’s (1986) classic discussions of
boys’ circumcision ritual among the Merina
in Madagascar. Bloch demonstrates that the
content and form of the ritual has been un-
changed for almost two centuries, despite its
shift from a small-scale village puberty rite to
a large-scale ritual central to Merina identity.
Because religion is a particularly stable so-
cial phenomenon, it can also be used as a
means of retaining valuable social information
over the long term. It is this property of rit-
ual upon which cultural materialists (Harris
1977; Lansing 1991; Rappaport 1968, 1979)
and their archaeological progeny (Cove 1978,
Minc 1986, Sobel & Bettles 2000; see also
Scarborough 1998) seized in their analyses.
For example, Sobel & Bettles (2000) argued
that methods for coping with winter food
shortages are contained within ritual recita-
tions of Klamath and Modoc myths of the
northwest coast of North America. Ritually
recited oral histories and folktales preserve
survival strategies so that younger generations
can employ them when famine strikes. The
danger in encoding environmental informa-
tion in oral traditions is that myths can be-
come corrupted through repeated retelling.
Thus, mechanisms must be developed that
preserve the integrity of ritual storytelling.
Sobel & Bettles discuss elaborate strategies
that the Klamath and Modoc employ to make
sure that their myths do not change over time.
Ritual recitations of famine myths are per-
formed only in winter (when the potential for
hunger is immediately present), three people
who know the story must be present at the
recitation to check for accuracy, and children
are not allowed to recite the stories. These rit-
ual proscriptions serve to keep the content of
the myths intact over multiple generations.
The anachronistic and invariant elements
of ritual fit well within archaeological ap-
proaches to ritual that employ historical and
ethnohistorical sources. If religion is among
the most stable and long-lasting cultural phe-
nomena, then ethnographic, ethnohistoric,
and historic accounts—even those that post-
date the archaeological period being studied
by several centuries—are a legitimate source
for the study of ancient religious practices.
www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Religious Ritual 57
 ANRV323-AN36-04
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.
ARI 13 August 2007 17:6
Furthermore, given the richness of the sym-
bolic, mythic, and doctrinal information avail-
able in these sources, it is not surprising that
archaeologists who have a more structural un-
derstanding of religion tend to focus on these
sources. Given the difficulty of determining
the meaning of symbols in purely prehistoric
contexts (Fogelin 2007, Hayes 1993), assum-
ing stability of religion over the long term is
a convenient research strategy. Recent trends
in the anthropology of religion, however, have
questioned these more simple formulations of
historical memory.
Ritual
Some anthropologists and religious histori-
ans advocate for the primacy of ritual practice
in the dialectic with religion. These scholars
emphasize the creative or revolutionary as-
pects of ritual. Rituals are not seen as pre-
serving or enacting stable sets of religious
beliefs, but rather rituals construct, create,
or modify religious beliefs (Bell 1992, 1997;
Humphrey & Laidlaw 1994). People con-
stantly choose to remember, forget, or recre-
ate elements of their religion through rit-
ual practices (Connerton 1989, Hobsbawm
& Ranger 1983). In archaeology this per-
spective has been employed in the works
of Bradley (1991, 2002, Bradley & Williams
1998), Rowlands (1993), and others (Chesson
2001, Jonker 1995, Meskell 2002, Pauketat
2001, Van Dyke & Alcock 2003). Although
specific rituals may remain the same over long
periods of time, their meaning for society
is constantly recontextualized. People trans-
form and change underlying religious beliefs
through the creation and practice of rituals.
Rather than focus on stable meanings of rit-
ual actions, practice theorists emphasize the
experiential aspects of ritual and the effects
of ritual on the social relations between rit-
ual participants. As such, practice approaches
tend to focus on ritual change and what rit-
ual does rather than on what it means, al-
though it is important not to overplay this
point.
58 Fogelin
If rituals enact religious principles, follow-
ing a structural perspective, then all rituals
should be religious or at least religious ritu-
als should constitute a fairly distinct category.
However, by placing the stress on ritual, prac-
tice theorists have a different problem. Sports,
theater, and other activities—what Bell (1997,
Ch. 5) labels ritual-like activities—are diffi-
cult to distinguish from religious ritual. Bell’s
use of the term ritual-like belies an interest
in maintaining a separation between religious
and secular rituals while recognizing the dif-
ficulty, if not impossibility, of doing so.
From a practice perspective, Bell (1997,
Ch. 5) identifies six characteristics that ritu-
als and ritual-like activities exhibit to varying
degrees. Bell is clear that these characteristics
are not exhaustive, nor are the characteristics
limited to religious ritual. The characteristics
are as follows.
 Formalism: Rituals often employ more
formal, or restricted, codes of speech
and action than people use in everyday
life.
 Traditionalism: Rituals often employ ar-
chaic or anachronistic elements.
 Invariance: Rituals often follow strict,
often repetitive, patterns.
 Rule-governance: Rituals are often gov-
erned by a strict code of rules that de-
termine appropriate behavior.
 Sacral symbolism: Rituals often
make reference to, or employ, sacred
symbolism.
 Performance: Ritual often involves pub-
lic display of ritual actions.
Ritual, from this perspective, is more a
process than an event (Bell 1992, Humphrey
& Laidlaw 1994). Certain actions are, or be-
come, ritualized; they become more formal,
traditional, invariant, etc. That is, ordinary
actions assume greater meaning and signifi-
cance. Although not strictly required by the
theoretical perspective, much of the literature
on practice theory emphasizes the ways that
ritualization promotes the development of re-
lationships of power (Bell 1992, Comaroff
1985, Ortner 1989). By focusing on the role
 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6
of ritual in forming, perpetuating, or resisting
power relationships, practice theorists down-
play the importance of symbolism in favor of
analyses that concern the ways people harness
symbolism to achieve specific ends. Thus, the
specific meaning of a symbol is less important
than the manner in which it is deployed and
the goals of the people who deploy it. Like-
wise, some archaeologists emphasize how the
experience of ritual creates, reaffirms, or chal-
lenges dominant social orders (Bradley 1998,
DeMarrais et al. 1996, Fogelin 2006, Inomata
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
2006, Inomata & Coben 2006, Lucero 2003,
Moore 1996).
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.
IDENTIFYING RITUAL IN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS
One of the earliest questions of archaeologists
who studied religious ritual was how to iden-
tify materials and locales that could be con-
sidered religious. As will become clear below,
many archaeologists now feel that this ques-
tion is, at a basic level, flawed. That said, ar-
chaeologists have long referred to any arti-
fact or feature that was strange, aberrant, or
inexplicable as religious, the assumption be-
ing that religion consists of those things that
have no functional value or are just plain odd
(Hodder 1982, p. 164; Renfrew 1994). De-
spite recent criticisms of trying to label things
as religious or not, the desire by early pio-
neers in the archaeology of religion and ritual
to develop more precise definitions is under-
standable in the contexts in which they were
working.
The recent resurgence of interest in rit-
ual by anthropological archaeologists can be
traced back to Renfrew’s pioneering work
at the Phylakopi Sanctuary on the Island
of Melos in Greece (Renfrew 1985; see
also Barrett 1991, Carmichael et al. 1994,
Garwood et al. 1991). Here Renfrew at-
tempted to establish specific criteria to eval-
uate whether a specific architectural complex
was a cult center or sanctuary. With this goal
in mind, Renfrew (1985, p. 19) developed a list
of material correlates that typically character-
ize the practice of ritual and compared it with
his archaeological assemblage. These archae-
ological characteristics of ritual included sac-
rificed plants or animals, a location in either
special buildings or geographic locales, and
distinct architectural elements (e.g., pools,
benches, and alters). In the end, Renfrew con-
cluded many of the characteristics of religious
ritual were present and that the structure he
was investigating was a cult sanctuary.
I do not doubt Renfrew’s identification of
Phylakopi’s cult center. What I find interest-
ing are the underlying views that Renfrew
brings to his research. Despite his focus on
the material remains of a ritual practice, his
understanding of religion could be described
best as structural (Renfrew 1985, p. 12, italics
in original).
The archaeologist . . . cannot observe be-
liefs: one can only work with material re-
mains, the consequences of actions. In fa-
vorable cases . . . these remains are the result
of actions which we can plausibly interpret
as arising from religious belief.
Renfrew provides an example of a structural
view of religion that begins with and cen-
ters on ritual. Renfrew correctly notes that
many rituals are not religious. For Renfrew,
then, the main goal of his criteria is to de-
velop methods to exclude those material con-
sequences of ritual that are not religiously
motivated. Renfrew accepts that his crite-
ria will tend to exclude domestic and other
small-scale rituals (Renfrew 1985, pp. 21–22).
For Renfrew this loss is acceptable if it al-
lows for the archaeological identification of at
least those rituals that are unquestionably de-
rived from religious beliefs. Other archaeolo-
gists are less willing to exclude the fringes of
ritual.
In contrast with Renfrew, other archae-
ologists of a more structuralist bent accept
that ritual and religion are more expansive
and less clearly definable than has been tra-
ditionally accepted (Brück 1999, Insoll 2004).
To accommodate this position, structuralist
www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Religious Ritual 59
 ANRV323-AN36-04
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.
ARI 13 August 2007 17:6
archaeologists are forced to expand the
breadth of religion’s influence on every-
day lives. By rejecting the Durkheimian
(1915[1995]) distinction between the sacred
and profane, these structuralist thinkers be-
gin to equate religion and culture. This per-
spective can be found most clearly in Insoll’s
recent discussions of religion (Insoll 2004,
p. 22).
The more we look, the more we can see
religion as a critical element in many ar-
eas of life above and beyond those usually
considered—technology, diet, refuse pat-
terning, housing. All can be influenced by
religion; they are today, why not in the past?
Religion can be of primary importance in
structuring life into which secular concerns
are fitted, the reverse of the often-posited
framework.
One can clearly see an element of truth
to this argument. Simply because some ac-
tion is economically rational does not nec-
essarily mean that it is not also religiously
motivated. However, from this perspective,
religion seems to be everywhere and all per-
vasive in nonwestern societies. The problem
with this perspective is the growing recogni-
tion (noted by Insoll 2004, p. 17) that some so-
cieties, even “traditional” societies, have only
a limited interest in things religious (Barth
1961, Douglas 1982, Kemp 1995). The sep-
aration of church and state may be a mod-
ern, western notion, but it is a mistake to as-
sume that people in other societies were or
are necessarily ruled by their religious be-
liefs any more, or less, then are Europeans
or Americans. The centrality of religion in
human society can be expected to be highly
variable and assumptions of its universal im-
portance highly suspect.
The expansiveness of Insoll’s view of reli-
gion is partially the product of his structural
view of religion itself. Following Otto (1950),
Insoll (2004, p. 150) argues that archaeologists
must recognize “that elements of the archae-
ology of religions are metaphysical by defi-
60 Fogelin
nition. Unfortunately, with much of the ar-
chaeology of religions we will never get at its
essence no matter how long we boil the pot,
because it is in the mind, it defies rationality,
and . . . it will remain elusive.” Whereas Insoll
rejects Renfrew’s reliance on the distinction
between the sacred and profane, he persists in
relying on a structural understanding of reli-
gion. When combined, these two views lead to
a degree of pessimism concerning the poten-
tial for archaeologists to study religious rituals
successfully.
Others who are interested in domestic or
other small-scale rituals celebrate the idea that
religious and secular rituals are not distinct
or clearly identifiable (Bradley 2005, Walker
1999). Rather than seeing this as a problem,
these archaeologists are interested in the pro-
cess whereby a seemingly ordinary action be-
comes ritualized. Rather than seeing rituals as
either religious or secular, archaeologists of
this sort view as worthy of study the gray area
between the two.
Once we reject the idea that the only func-
tion of ritual is to communicate religious be-
liefs, it becomes unnecessary to separate this
kind of activity from the patterns of daily life.
In fact, ritual extends from the local, infor-
mal and ephemeral to the public and highly
organized, and their social contexts vary
accordingly. (Bradley 2005, p. 33)
In a detailed study of ritual in prehis-
toric Europe, Bradley (2005) intentionally ex-
plores the blurred areas between religious
rituals, secular rituals, and everyday life. In
one brief discussion, Bradley examines the
difficulties archaeologists have had in deci-
phering the role of a type of earthen en-
closure (Vierekschanze) in Neolithic central
Europe. These structures blend ritual, do-
mestic, and even industrial characteristics in
ways that have frustrated attempts at un-
derstanding them. One of these structures,
Mšecké Zehrovice in Bohemia, blends ritual
structures and metalworking (Bradley 2005,
pp. 21–23; Venclová 1998). Relying on
 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6
ethnographic accounts of metalworking,
Bradley argues that the transformative prac-
tices of metalworking typically rely on magic,
ritual, and restricted knowledge (see Schmidt
& Mapunda 1997; see also Dobres 2000). Tra-
ditionally metalworking was a ritual act, even
if it resulted in the production of utilitarian
objects. Thus, the question “is it religious?”
is viewed as fundamentally flawed. Unlike the
position advocated by Insoll, Bradley rejects
both the structural view of religion and the
distinction between sacred and profane. Met-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
alworking is both sacred and profane. Sacred-
ness does not adhere to any object or phe-
nomena in particular, but is created through
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.
an object’s use or performance in specific con-
texts, often tied metaphorically to an object’s
mundane or domestic role (Bradley 2005; see
also Ortman 2000, Plunket ed. 2002, Tilley
1999).
RITUAL AS ACTION
Archaeologists do not necessarily have to de-
velop a theory of mind or symbolic exegesis
to recognize that sequences of deposits and
variability within those deposits can reveal
ritual and nonritual activities. Rather, they
need to recognize that ritual embodies be-
haviors as much as symbols. (Walker 1998,
p. 296)
Until recently, most archaeologists viewed re-
ligion in structural terms: that religion con-
sisted of belief, doctrine, and mythology.
Ritual, if it was considered at all, was decid-
edly secondary. Given this understanding, it is
not surprising that archaeologists argued that
religion was not a productive field of research
(Binford 1965, Hawkes 1954; in contrast see
Fritz 1978). This perception began to change
with the advent of more practice-oriented
approaches to the anthropology of religion.
Archaeologists had long recognized that the
archaeological record was created by human
actions in the past; they now recognized that
ritual could also leave material traces as well.
With this new insight, archaeologists in both
the United States and Europe began to work
on developing new methodologies for the
interpretation of rituals as forms of human
action.
Behavioral Archaeology
Among the first to examine ritual as action
in the United States was Walker in his stud-
ies of witchcraft in the American Southwest
(Walker 1996, 1998, 1999). Following the
principles of behavioral archaeology, Walker
defined his subject matter as “ritual behav-
ior and its attendant ritual objects as ma-
terial processes comprised of people inter-
acting with artifacts” (Walker 1998, p. 246).
Walker explicitly argued against a simple di-
vision between utilitarian/nonutilitarian arti-
facts. Rather, he argued that the ritual aspects
of artifacts are a product of their use in a rit-
ual context—that normal, everyday artifacts
take on special ritual significance based on
ritual use during the life history of the arti-
fact. In particular, Walker investigated krato-
phanous violence, the intentional destruction
and discard of ritual objects. By carefully in-
vestigating the context in which objects were
deposited, Walker argued that it is possible to
identify those objects, or people, that were the
recipients of kratophanous violence. Walker
argued specifically that evidence for extreme
postmortem violence against certain individ-
uals, structures, and artifacts was evidence
for the ethnohistorically known ritual treat-
ment of witches in the American Southwest.
In addition to Walker’s behavioral approach
to sacrificial ritual, many other archaeological
studies of sacrifice, votive deposits, and offer-
ings have also been conducted by other ar-
chaeologists (Bradley 2005; Hill 1995, 2003;
Kunen et al. 2002; Lucero 2003; Marcus 1998;
Osborne 2004).
Of particular importance to the archaeo-
logical study of ancient ritual is the commend-
able rigor and nuance that Walker’s (1998,
1999, 2002; see also Appadurai 1986) life-
history approach brings to the question “is
it religious?” It allows for artifacts to be
www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Religious Ritual 61
 ANRV323-AN36-04
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.
ARI 13 August 2007 17:6
considered both utilitarian and religious de-
pending on the questions, or contexts, be-
ing investigated. In this sense, the methods
and conclusions of behavioral archaeology are
surprisingly similar to research that relies on
practice theory.
Experiential Approaches to Ritual
In contrast to the behavioral emphasis on
taphonomy, archaeologists who rely on prac-
tice theory have focused attention on the way
in which ritual was experienced by people in
the past (Bradley 2000; Fogelin 2003, 2004,
2006; Howey & O’Shea 2006; Inomata 2006;
Inomata & Coben 2006; Moore 1996; Smith
& Brooks 2001; see also Tilley 1994 for a
phenomenological approach to experiential
archaeology). A particularly robust example
of the experiential approach is presented by
Moore (1996) in his study of pyramid com-
plexes in coastal Peru. He carefully exam-
ined the size, elevation, and layout of pyramid
complexes, paying close attention to the ac-
tual and perceived size of the pyramids from
the viewpoint of the people standing below
them. He concluded that a variety of architec-
tural tricks were employed in the construction
of the pyramids to increase their grandeur.
In turn, this grandeur served to promote the
power of those in charge of the rituals per-
formed on top of the structures. On a more
pragmatic level, Moore noted that given the
great distance between the ritual participants
on the pyramids and the spectators below, the
rituals performed must have required large
movements and limited vocalizations because
it would have been exceptionally difficult for
the audience to see or hear what was occurring
on top of the pyramids.
As in Moore’s emphasis on “architecture
of power” (Moore 1996; see also Fox 1996),
archaeologists who focus on the experiential
elements of ritual often emphasize the ways
that rituals serve the interests of authority and
resistance to authority. In his work on early
Buddhist Monasteries in South India, Fogelin
(2003, 2006) examined the spatial organiza-
62 Fogelin
tion of ritual architecture to demonstrate that
different layouts promoted rituals that alter-
nately served monastic or lay Buddhist inter-
ests. At those religious centers most closely
associated with Buddhist monasteries, ritual
spaces were organized so that an individual
could stand between the central symbolic fo-
cus (a large hemispherical mound referred to
as a stupa) of the space and devotees who were
forced to face him or her. This layout pro-
moted leadership roles for monks in ritual ob-
servances. In contrast, ritual centers favored
by the laity placed the stupa at the center of a
large courtyard, eliminating the potential for
any individual to stand between the ritual fo-
cus and all those who were engaged in rit-
ual around it. If any individual attempted to
place themselves physically as intermediaries,
the audience could simply walk to the other
side of the stupa and ignore the presumptive
ritual leader entirely. Thus, different archi-
tectural layouts of religious centers promoted
ritual experiences that favored either monas-
tic or lay-Buddhist interests.
Both behavioral and experiential ap-
proaches to the archaeology of ritual down-
play, if not exclude, investigations of sym-
bolism. Rather, both tend to focus more on
the functions of ritual, often in terms of le-
gitimizing existing social orders. This does
not mean that archaeologists who employ
these approaches are uninterested in symbolic
meaning, but only that they tend to be more
conservative in their use of it. Where strong
historic or ethnohistoric sources are avail-
able, even archaeologists who emphasize rit-
ual practice will use them (see Fogelin 2006,
Walker 1998). However, the strong emphasis
on human action in these approaches places
lesser value on symbolic understandings of
past ritual.
RITUALS AND SYMBOLS
Many archaeologists, myself included, have
criticized those archaeologists who focus on
symbolic analyses (Fogelin 2007, Howey &
O’Shea 2006, Insoll 2004, Renfrew 1994,
 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6
Walker 1998). I now believe that I was mis-
taken in many of my early criticisms. Ritu-
als do, at times, enact deeper religious beliefs
through complex symbolic actions. If religion
and ritual truly inform one another, archae-
ologists can only benefit from investigations
into both sides of the dialectic. Where written
sources describe religious beliefs, mytholo-
gies, and symbolism, a structural approach to
ritual is fairly straightforward. However, there
is no reason, a priori, to assume that prehis-
torians cannot study ancient symbolism and
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
belief. The question remains, however, how
best to study symbolism within the material
confines of archaeological research.
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.
If symbols are organized in complex sys-
tems, as Geertz (1973) argues, then knowl-
edge of some aspects of the symbolic system
could be used to infer other parts. Archaeolo-
gists might even identify a key symbol (Ortner
1973), one that serves as a central element of
ancient ritual practices. Furthermore, studies
of ancient symbolism need not focus solely on
the symbols themselves but can infer symbolic
meanings of rituals from the material remains
of rituals themselves. Archaeologists can use
structural regularities in the relationship be-
tween ritual and religion to investigate sym-
bolism and belief in the past, even in the ab-
sence of historical or ethnohistorical sources.
Enactments of Meaning
Perhaps the most common approach to the ar-
chaeological study of ritual consists of using
historic or ethnohistoric sources as a guide to
the interpretation of archaeological remains.
Brown’s (2003; see also Brown 1997, Hall
1997) analysis of a burial assemblage within
Mound 72 at Cahokia in the American Bottom
provides a good example of the strengths of
this approach. Mound 72 consists of several
burials, one laying on top of a cape of 20,000
marine shell beads (Fowler et al. 1999). An-
other burial lies directly below the former,
with several others burials surrounding them.
Traditionally, this assemblage has been inter-
preted as an elite burial surrounded by buri-
als of his attendants—some potentially sacri-
ficed as part of the mortuary ritual (Emerson
1997, Pauketat 2004). Relying on ethnohis-
toric sources and detailed iconographic anal-
yses, Brown argues for a different interpreta-
tion, that the assemblage is the retelling of a
specific myth common in the Midwest (Brown
2003, p. 96).
Led by a falcon hero, the heroes, four
in number, game with the representatives
of death and the netherworld (Hall 1997).
Ultimately losing their heads, the heroes
pass into temporary oblivion. In time the son
or sons/nephews of the falcon hero avenge
the death of their ancestors by seizing the
head from the custody of death.
This myth is made materially manifest in a
mortuary tableau at Mound 72. Brown iden-
tifies the figures in the myth through exam-
inations of the iconographic elements found
within each burial. The central figure, laying
on the beaded cape, is the avenging son of the
falcon hero, laying directly above the defeated
figure of death. The surrounding burials con-
sist of the falcon hero and his teammates. Fur-
thermore, all the figures within the tableau are
“constructed” of secondary burials with the
exception of one: the primary burial of an in-
dividual in the position of the falcon hero. For
Brown, it is this figure, not the figure on the
beaded cape, for whom the mythic tableau was
constructed. Thus, traditional interpretations
of the mortuary assemblage, in the absence of
the symbolic associations, led to the incorrect
identification of the only elite burial within
the assemblage as that of an attendant.
The strength of Brown’s interpretation
rests on his use of structural assumptions con-
cerning the guiding force of religious thought
(the falcon hero myth) in directing ritual ac-
tion (the interment of people within Mound
72). For Brown, then, the ritual actions at
Mound 72 are best explained as ritual en-
actments of symbolic meaning rather than as
simple statements of ritual power. Brown’s
analysis also demonstrates the value of ritual
www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Religious Ritual 63
 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6
MORTUARY RITUAL
Among the most developed subjects within the archaeology
of ritual are studies of mortuary ritual. Archaeologists have
long recognized that the interment of human remains is typi-
cally associated with rituals, often understood in terms of rites
of passage (Turner 1966, Van Gennep 1960). Given the large
number of studies of mortuary ritual and the existence of sev-
eral excellent reviews on the subject (Pearson 2001, Williams
et al. 2005), I have chosen not to discuss mortuary archaeology
in any significant detail. Approaches to the study of mortuary
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
ritual have many of the same elements as studies of ritual gen-
erally. Where some archaeologists focus on the iconographic
and symbolic meaning of grave goods, others focus more on
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.
the processes of interment of the body and the ritual practices
that accompanied interment. In general, archaeologists have
gradually moved away from studies that see mortuary ritual as
passively reflecting society toward studies that see mortuary
ritual as actively constructing social orders.
perspectives in the study of mortuary practices
(see Mortuary Ritual).
Ethnohistorical and historical sources in-
form numerous studies of ancient ritual,
particularly in the new world (e.g., Bauer
1992, Brady & Prufer 2005, Sekaquaptewa
& Washburn 2004, Hayes-Gilpin & Hill
1999, Fowles 2005). These studies rely on the
greater ability of myth, art, and other forms
of religious expression to provide guidance
on the interpretation of material remains of
ritual. One can, however, investigate symbols
archaeologically in other ways, by exploiting
other structural understandings of symbols.
Cognitive Archaeology
A different approach to structural regulari-
ties in ritual is promoted by cognitive archae-
ologists (Renfrew & Zubrow 1994, Mithen
1998). Cognitive archaeologists focus on the
physiological processes of the human brain
and the implications of these processes on hu-
man cognition. Unlike other structural ex-
planations of ritual, cognitive archaeology
actually posits the specific cause of sym-
64 Fogelin
bolic regularities but fails to illuminate spe-
cific meanings of the ritual symbols. In this
sense it blends the experiential and symbolic
approaches discussed thus far. Whereas the
meaning of a symbol is downplayed in cog-
nitive archaeology, the experience of creating
and working with symbols is well explored.
Lewis-Williams (2002b) has argued that
rock art often depicts the effects of the
shamanic trance state on the human brain
(Pearson 2002, Price 2001, Whitley & Keyser
2003). When going into a trance state,
whichever means are used to achieve it, several
common physiological stages occur (Lewis-
Williams & Dowson 1988). Initially, people
entering a trance state begin seeing entop-
tic visions—flickering or wavy geometric lines
and dots visible with eyes open or shut. In the
next stage, the mind of the person in the trance
state tries to make sense of the entoptic visions
by associating them with things that are famil-
iar. A wavy line may be seen by the person in a
trance as a horse or mountain. Finally, in the
third stage shamans feel as if they are pass-
ing or flying through a tunnel into another
world. At this stage, odd groupings of entop-
tic visions may be blended in the mind of a
shaman, resulting in images of animals with
human heads or other fantastical imagery.
The bulk of Lewis-Williams’s research
concerns rock art in southern Africa (2002a),
but his discussion of the rock art in Lascaux,
an Upper Paleolithic cave site in France, illus-
trates his overall perspective (Lewis-Williams
1997, 2002b). He argues that spatial move-
ment into the cave graphically represents
the shamanic movement into trance. Thus,
initially the cave has a substantial amount
of geometric and animal motifs. Moving
inward the images depict elements repre-
senting movement through a tunnel, finally
reaching the deepest portions of the cave
where blended and fantastic images occur. For
Lewis-Williams, the cave paintings of Lascaux
are a record of shamanic rituals practiced
17,000 years ago in Europe. Although Lewis-
Williams’s interpretation does not decipher
the specific meaning of the bulls, horses, and
 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6
other painting in Lascaux, it does offer an ex-
planation for the creation of the paintings and
identify the practice of a specific form of rit-
ual, shamanism, in the distant past.
Symbols and Power
A final approach to the study of ritual sym-
bolism concerns issues of power and the cre-
ation of dominant ideologies. Whereas much
of this research relies on structural assump-
tions concerning the dominance of religion
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
and myth in ordering society, some of it fo-
cuses more on how symbols are appropri-
ated and manipulated to achieve specific ends
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.
(e.g., Inomata 2001, Lucero 2003, Mills 2004,
Pauketat & Emerson 1991, VanPool 2003).
The former approach assumes that the role
of ritual is enacting long-lasting cosmologi-
cal orders that legitimize the ruling elite. The
latter blends with experiential approaches to
ritual discussed earlier, with ritualized sym-
bols as points of contention between rival
claimants to power. In either case, research
in this vein asks who controls or benefits from
the production, display, and performance of
ritual symbolism? The main differences con-
cern archaeologists’ views on the stability or
dynamism of ritual symbolism.
An important element of these studies for
all archaeological research on ritual is that
symbols are also material things, that ide-
ology is materialized in objects (DeMarrais
et al. 1996; Robb 1998, 1999). Once material-
ized, these symbolic objects can be controlled
and manipulated in much the same way that
any other nonsymbolic object can. The ruling
elite can, for instance, limit access to material
symbols in much the same way they can limit
access to food or other goods. Furthermore,
the manipulation of a material symbol can act
to change the underlying meaning of the same
symbol. The construction of a sacred building
by a king is an avenue toward sacred power;
limiting access to the same building affirms
that sacred power is restricted to a select few.
Ritual, in this formulation, is also form of ma-
terialized ideology.
Pauketat & Alt (2004; see also Pauketat
et al. 2002, Pauketat and Emerson 1991) pro-
ductively employ these insights in an exam-
ination of a cache of 70 stone axe heads at
the Grossman site, a small village in the up-
lands above Cahokia. Through careful exam-
inations of the placement, material, and mor-
phology of the axe heads, Pauketat & Alt
argue that the cache was constructed as part
of a ritual intended to promote solidarity
among the diverse social groups coming under
the dominion of Cahokia. Different people,
representing different social groups, placed
axe heads into the cache sequentially, sig-
nifying their unity. As stated by Pauketat
& Alt (2004, p. 794), “the ritual burial of
the axe-heads at Grossman might have sig-
nified the coming together of the Cahokian
order.”
Approaches to Ritual Symbolism
If symbols are material things that can be ma-
nipulated and used by people in the past, then
archaeologists should be able to infer at least
some of their meaning through careful exami-
nations of their material context. These stud-
ies can be heavily informed by historic and
ethnohistoric sources or even by generalized
processes of the human brain. The material
context of symbols can also be used to in-
fer the manner in which they were employed
to reaffirm dominant ideologies. Whatever
approach is used, deciphering the symbolic
meanings of past rituals, particularly in ab-
sence of historic or ethnohistoric sources, re-
mains among the most challenging and un-
derdeveloped aspects of the archaeology of
ritual.
CONCLUSION
The insights of cognitive archaeology and
practice-centered archaeology—whether em-
phasizing symbolism or human action—are
important advances in the study of ancient rit-
ual, but at least part of their success comes
from avoiding the issue of symbolic meaning.
www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Religious Ritual 65
 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6

Rather, both tend to emphasize more func-
tional aspects of past ritual. These approaches
do provide rich accounts of ritual activi-
ties in the past, but it is hard to deny that
interpretations that also account for sym-
bolic meaning would be even richer. When
it comes to symbolic meaning, archaeologists
still rely primarily on ethnohistoric and his-
toric sources to guide their interpretations.
Future research on the archaeology of rit-
ual needs to develop new, robust approaches
to the interpretation of symbolic meaning in
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
address the material implications of ritual and
ritual symbolism that are often lacking in the
existing anthropological literature.
Few archaeologists strictly follow either
a structural or practice-oriented approach to
the archaeology of ritual. More typically, ar-
chaeologists employ insights from both per-
spectives in their research. Given the di-
alectical nature of religion and ritual and
the fragmentary evidence of ancient ritual,
blended approaches are both necessary and
successful. This does not mean that archaeol-

ritual. ogists have overcome the contradictions be-

In the past few decades archaeologists have tween a structural and agent-oriented under-
made great strides in deciphering cosmo- standing of ritual but only that they have
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.

logical principles. Now archaeologists must
develop methods for identifying how cosmo-
logical or religious concepts are materially en-
acted or communicated through ritual. A first
step toward this end would be ethnoarchae-
ological studies of ritual (see Jordan 2003).
Ethnoarchaeological research could begin to
productively sidestepped the problem. Fu-
ture archaeological research on ritual must
begin to address these issues more explic-
itly, if only to identify regularities better in
the relationship between religion and ritual
that can be exploited for new archaeological
research.

SUMMARY POINTS
1. Archaeologists often assume that ritual is a form of human action that leaves material
traces, whereas religion is a more abstract symbolic system consisting of beliefs, myths,
and doctrines. The dialectic between ritual and religion allows each to inform on the
other.
2. Some archaeologists view religion as primary, with ritual as a means of enacting the
embedded meanings of religious belief. Others see ritual as primary; the specifics of
religious belief systems are created to conform to rituals practices.
3. Archaeologists who see religion as primary see the goal of the archaeology of ritual as
the identification of underlying meaning of ritual acts. Studies of this sort often make
extensive use of historical and ethnohistorical sources.
4. Archaeologists who view ritual as primary investigate the ways that the experience
of ritual served to create, reaffirm, or contest social orders, often viewed in terms of
authority and subordination.
5. Archaeologists have also productively studied ancient symbols as material objects,
gaining insight into the function of symbols, if not the meaning of them.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of
this review.

66 Fogelin
 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6

LITERATURE CITED
Appadurai A, ed. 1986. The Social Life of Things. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Barrett JC. 1991. Toward an archaeology of ritual. In The Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of
a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual, and Religion, ed. P Garwood, D Jennings, R Skeates,
J Toms, pp. 1–9. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Comm. Archaeol.
Barrett JC. 2001. Agency, the duality of structure, and the problem of the archaeological record.
In Archaeological Theory Today, ed. I Hodder, pp. 141–64. London: Polity
Barth F. 1961. Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri Tribe of the Khamseh Confederacy. Boston:
Little, Brown and Co.
An excellent
Bauer BS. 1992. Ritual pathways of the Inca: an analysis of the Collasuyu Ceques in Cuzco.
historical review of
Latin Am. Antiq. 3:183–205 theories of ritual;
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Bell C. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford Univ. Press the second half of
Bell C. 1997. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press the book
Binford LR. 1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. Am. Antiq. emphasizes
practice theory
31:203–10
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.

Bloch M. 1977. The past in the present. Man 12:278–92

Bloch M. 1986. From Blessing to Violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Details an
Bradley R. 1991. Ritual, time, and history. World Archaeol. 23:209–19 experiential
Bradley R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience approach to the
in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London: Routledge study of ritual
architecture
Bradley R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge
through diachronic
Bradley R. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge examinations of
Bradley R. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. London: Routledge monuments and
Bradley R, Williams H, eds. 1998. The past in the past. World Archaeol. Vol. 30 landscapes
Brady JE, Prufer KM, eds. 2005. In the Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican Ritual Cave
Use. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
Brown JA. 1997. The archaeology of ancient religion in the eastern woodlands. Annu. Rev. An effective
demonstration of
Anthropol. 26:465–85
the value of
Brown JA. 2003. The Cahokia mound 72-sub 1 burials as collective representations. Wis. studying
Archaeol. 84:83–99 small-scale,
Brück J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology. domestic rituals
Eur. J. Archaeol. 2:313–44 and ritualization in
Carmichael DL, Hubert J, Reeves B, Schanche A, eds. 1994. Sacred Sites, Sacred Spaces. London: prehistoric
contexts
Routledge
Chesson MS, ed. 2001. Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mor-
tuary Rituals. Arlington: Am. Anthropol. Assoc.
Comaroff J. 1985. Body of Power, Spirit of Resistance: The Culture and History of a South American
People. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Connerton P. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Argues that
Cove JJ. 1978. Survival or extinction: reflections on the problem of famine in Tsimshian and ideology is
Kaguru mythology. In Extinction and Survival in Human Populations, ed. CD Laughlin, IA materialized in
Brady, pp. 231–44. New York: Columbia Univ. Press things that can be
employed in
DeMarrais E, Castillo LJ, Earle T. 1996. Ideology, materialization, and power Strategies.
creating,
Curr. Anthropol. 37:15–86 reaffirming, or
Dobres MA. 2000. Technology and Social Agency. Malden: Blackwell contesting
Dobres MA, Robb JE, eds. 2000. Agency in Archaeology. London: Routledge dominant
Douglas M. 1982. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Pantheon ideologies
Durkheim E. 1915 [1995]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press

www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Religious Ritual 67

 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6

Emerson TE. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa: Univ. Ala. Press
Fogelin L. 2003. Ritual and presentation in early Buddhist religious architecture. Asian Perspect.
42:129–54
Fogelin L. 2004. Sacred architecture, sacred landscape: early Buddhism in coastal Andhra
Pradesh. In Archaeology as History: South Asia, ed. HP Ray, CM Sinopoli, pp. 376–91. New
Delhi: ICHR
Fogelin L. 2006. Archaeology of Early Buddhism. Walnut Creek: Altamira
Fogelin L. 2007. History, ethnography, and essentialism: the archaeology of religion and ritual
in South Asia. In The Archaeology of Ritual, ed. E Kyriakidis. Los Angeles: Cotsen Inst.
Archaeol. In press
Fowler ML, Rose J, Leest BV, Ahler SA. 1999. The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space
in Early Cahokia. Springfield: Ill. State Mus.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Fowles SM. 2005. Our father (our mother): gender, ideology, praxis and marginalization in
Pueblo religion. In Engaged Anthropology, ed. M Hegmon, BS Eiselt, pp. 27–51. Ann
Arbor: Mus. Anthropol., Univ. Mich.
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.

Fox JG. 1996. Playing with power: ballcourts and political ritual in Southern Mesoamerica.
Curr. Anthropol. 37:483–509
Frazer GJ. 1955. The Golden Bough: A Study of Magic and Religion. London: Macmillan
Fritz J. 1978. Paleopsychology today: ideational systems and human adaptation in prehistory.
In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, ed. C Redman, pp. 37–60. New York:
Academic
Garwood P, Jennings D, Skeates R, Toms J, eds. 1991. The Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a
Conference on Archaeology, Ritual, and Religion. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Comm. Archaeol.
Geertz C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books
Hall RL. 1997. An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. Urbana: Univ.
Ill. Press
Harris M. 1977. Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Culture. New York: Random House
An influential early Hawkes C. 1954. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the Old
article that argued
World. Am. Anthropol. 56:155–68
archaeologists
could not Hayes KA. 1993. When is a symbol archaeologically meaningful? Meaning, function, and pre-
effectively study historic visual arts. In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda, ed. N Yoffee, A Sherratt,
prehistoric religion pp. 81–92. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hays-Gilpin K, Hill JH. 1999. The flower world in material culture: an iconographic complex
in the Southwest and Mesoamerica. J. Anthropol. Res. 55:1–37
Hill E. 2003. Sacrificing Moche bodies. J. Mater. Cult. 8:285–99
Hill JD. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A Study on the Formation of a Specific
Archaeological Record. Oxford: Tempus Repartum
Hobsbawm E, Ranger T, eds. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Hodder I. 1982. The Present Past. London: Batsford
Howey MCL, O’Shea JM. 2006. Bear’s journey and the study of ritual in archaeology. Am.
Antiq. 71:261–82
Humphrey C, Laidlaw J. 1994. Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the
Jain Rite of Worship. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Inomata T. 2001. The power and ideology of artistic creation. Curr. Anthropol. 42:321–49
Inomata T. 2006. Plazas, performers, and spectators. Curr. Anthropol. 47:805–42
Inomata T, Coben LS, eds. 2006. Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and
Politics. Walnut Creek: Altamira

68 Fogelin
 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6

Insoll T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London: Routledge

Jonker G. 1995. The Topography of Remembrance: The Dead, Tradition and Collective Memory in
Mesopotamia. Leiden: E. J. Brill
Jordan P. 2003. Material Culture and the Sacred Landscape: The Anthropology of the Siberian Khanty.
Walnut Creek: Altamira
Kemp B. 1995. How religious were the ancient Egyptians? Cambridge Archaeol. J. 5:25–54
Kluckhohn C. 1942. Myths and rituals: a general theory. Harvard Theolog. Rev. 35:42–79
Kunen JL, Galindo MJ, Chase E. 2002. Pits and bones: identifying Maya ritual behavior in the
archaeological record. Anc. Mesoam. 13:197–211
Lansing SJ. 1991. Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of
Bali. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Lewis-Williams D, Dowson TA. 1988. The signs of all times: entoptic phenomena in Upper
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Paleolithic art. Curr. Anthropol. 29:201–45

Lewis-Williams JD. 1997. Harnessing the brain: vision and shamanism in Upper Paleolithic
Western Europe. In Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and symbol, ed. M Conkey, O Sofer,
D Stratmann, NG Jablonski, pp. 321–42. San Francisco: Univ. Calif. Press
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.

Lewis-Williams JD. 2002a. A Cosmos In Stone: Interpreting Religion and Society Through
An example of
Rock Art. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira cognitive
Lewis-Williams JD. 2002b. The Mind in the Cave. London: Thames and Hudson archaeology,
Lucero LJ. 2003. The emergence of classic Maya rulers. Curr. Anthropol. 44:523–58 focused on the role
Marcus J. 1998. Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca: Figurine-making, Divination and the An- of shamanism in
cestors. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Mus. Anthropol. the creation of rock
art in southern
Meskell LM. 2002. Private Life in New Kingdom Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Africa
Mills BJ. 2004. The establishment and defeat of hierarchy: inalienable possessions and the
history of collective prestige structures in the Pueblo Southwest. Am. Anthropol. 106:238–
52
Minc L. 1986. Scarcity and survival: the role of oral tradition in mediating subsistence crises.
J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 5:39–113
Mithen S. 1998. Prehistory of the Mind. London: Phoenix
Moore JD. 1996. Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Müller M. 1967. Lectures on the Science of Language. New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co.
Ortman SG. 2000. Conceptual metaphor in the archaeological record: methods and an example
from the American Southwest. Am. Antiq. 65:613–45
Ortner SB. 1973. On Key Symbols. Am. Anthropol. 75:1338–46
Ortner SB. 1989. High Religion: A Cultural and Political History of Sherpa Buddhism. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Osborne R, ed. 2004. Object of Dedication. World Archaeol. Vol. 36
Otto R. 1950. The Idea of the Holy. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Pauketat TR. 2001. Practice and history in archaeology: an emerging paradigm. Anthropol.
Theory 1:73–98
Pauketat TR. 2004. Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Pauketat TR, Alt SM. 2004. The making and meaning of a Mississippian axe-head cache.
Antiquity 78:779–97
Pauketat TR, Emerson TE. 1991. The ideology of authority and the power of the pot. Am.
Anthropol. 93:919–41
Pauketat TR, Kelly LS, Fritz GJ, Lopinot NH, Elias S, Hargrave E. 2002. The residues of
feasting and public ritual at early Cahokia. Am. Antiq. 67:257–79

www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Religious Ritual 69

 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6

Pearson JL. 2002. Shamanism and the Ancient Mind. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Pearson MP. 2001. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Station: Tex. A&M Univ. Press
Plunket P, ed. 2002. Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica. Los Angeles: Cotsen Inst. Archaeol.
Price N, ed. 2001. The Archaeology of Shamanism. London: Routledge
Rappaport RA. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
Rappaport RA. 1979. Ritual regulation of environmental relations among a New Guinea people.
In Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. Berkeley, CA: N. Atl. Books
Renfrew C. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. London: Thames
A seminal work
arguing that and Hudson
archaeologists can Renfrew C. 1994. The archaeology of religion. In The Ancient Mind, ed. C Renfrew, E Zubrow,
effectively identify pp. 47–54. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
the material Renfrew C, Zubrow E, eds. 1994. The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

remains of religion
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
and ritual
Robb JE. 1998. The archaeology of symbols. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 27:329–46
Robb JE, ed. 1999. Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale, IL: Cent.
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.

Archaeol. Investig.
Robertson Smith W. 1969. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions.
New York: KTAV
Rowlands M. 1993. The role of memory in the transmission of culture. World Archaeol. 25:141–
51
Scarborough VL. 1998. Ecology and ritual: water management and the Maya. Latin Am. Antiq.
9:135–59
Schmidt PR, Mapunda BB. 1997. Ideology and the archaeological record in Africa: interpreting
symbolism in iron smelting technology. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 16:73–102
Sekaquaptewa E, Washburn D. 2004. They go along singing: reconstructing the Hopi past
from ritual metaphors in song and image. Am. Antiq. 69:457–86
Smith A, Brooks A, eds. 2001. Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to Landscape and Material
Culture of Ritual Space Objects. Oxford: Archaeopress
Sobel E, Bettles G. 2000. Winter hunger, winter myths: subsistence risk and mythology among
the Klamath and Modoc. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 19:276–313
Tattersall I. 1998. Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness. San Diego, CA: Harcourt
Brace
Tilley C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg
Tilley C. 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. London: Blackwell
Turner V. 1966. Betwixt and between: the liminal period in rites of passage. In The Forest of
Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual, pp. 93–111. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Van Dyke RM, Alcock SE, eds. 2003. Archaeologies of Memory. Malden: Blackwell
Van Gennep A. 1960. The Rites of Passage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
VanPool CS. 2003. The shaman-priests of the Casas Grandes Region, Chihuahua, Mexico.
Am. Antiq. 68:696–717
Introduces a
behavioral Venclová N. 1998. Mšecké Zehrovice in Bohemia: Archaeological Background to a Celtic Hero. Sceaux:
approach to the Kronos B. Y.
archaeological Walker WH. 1996. Ritual deposits: another perspective. In River of Change: Prehistory of the
study of ritual, with Middle Little Colorado River, ed. CE Adams, pp. 75–91. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
a focus on ritual
Walker WH. 1998. Where are the witches of prehistory. J. Archaeol. Method Theory
deposition,
violence, and 5:245–308
witchcraft Walker WH. 1999. Ritual, life histories, and the afterlives of people and things. J. Southwest
41:383–405

70 Fogelin
 ANRV323-AN36-04 ARI 13 August 2007 17:6

Walker WH. 2002. Stratigraphy and practical reason. Am. Anthropol. 104:159–77
Wallace AFC. 1966. Culture and Personality. New York: Random House
Whitley DS, Keyser JD. 2003. Faith in the past: debating an archaeology of religion. Antiquity
77:385–93
Williams SR, Rakita GFM, Rakita FM, Buikstra JE, eds. 2005. Interacting With the Dead:
Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium. Gainesville: Univ. Press Fla.

RELATED RESOURCES
Insoll T, ed. 2001. Archaeology and World Religion. London: Routledge
Kyriakidis E, ed. 2007. The Archaeology of Ritual. Los Angeles: Cotsen Inst. Archaeol. In Press
Whitley D, Hayes-Gilpin K, eds. 2007. Belief in the Past. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

In press
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.

www.annualreviews.org • The Archaeology of Religious Ritual 71

 AR323-FM ARI 24 August 2007 20:38

Annual Review of
Anthropology

Contents Volume 36, 2007

Prefatory Chapter
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Overview: Sixty Years in Anthropology

Fredrik Barth p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p1
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.

Archaeology
The Archaeology of Religious Ritual
Lars Fogelin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 55
Çatalhöyük in the Context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic
Ian Hodder p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p105
The Archaeology of Sudan and Nubia
David N. Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p211
A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientific Techniques into
Archaeological Interpretation
A. Mark Pollard and Peter Bray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p245

Biological Anthropology
Evolutionary Medicine
Wenda R. Trevathan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p139
Genomic Comparisons of Humans and Chimpanzees
Ajit Varki and David L. Nelson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p191
Geometric Morphometrics
Dennis E. Slice p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p261
Genetic Basis of Physical Fitness
Hugh Montgomery and Latif Safari p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p391

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Sociophonetics
Jennifer Hay and Katie Drager p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 89

vii
 AR323-FM ARI 24 August 2007 20:38

Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis

Jack Sidnell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p229
Semiotic Anthropology
Elizabeth Mertz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p337

Sociocultural Anthropology
Queer Studies in the House of Anthropology
Tom Boellstorff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 17
Gender and Technology
Francesca Bray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 37
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:55-71. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

The Anthropology of Organized Labor in the United States

E. Paul Durrenberger p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 73
by ALBION COLLEGE on 11/28/07. For personal use only.

Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl:

The Political Ecology of the New American West
Thomas E. Sheridan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p121
Anthropology and Militarism
Hugh Gusterson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p155
The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate
Raymond Hames p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p177
The Genetic Reinscription of Race
Nadia Abu El-Haj p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p283
Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where Are We Now?
Susan Charnley and Melissa R. Poe p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p301
Legacies of Derrida: Anthropology
Rosalind C. Morris p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p355

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 28–36 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p407

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 28–36 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p410

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found

at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

viii Contents