Do Ut Des – the Relation of Material History and Archaeology of Religion to the Study of Religions

Archaeology as “material history” and the study of religions mutually reciprocate through their shared interest in the ability of people to establish memories and create imaginaries. Starting from this presupposition, the article evaluates the approaches used in archaeology to analyse the practices...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of religious history 2022-12, Vol.46 (4), p.726-758
1. Verfasser: Rieger, Anna‐Katharina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 758
container_issue 4
container_start_page 726
container_title Journal of religious history
container_volume 46
creator Rieger, Anna‐Katharina
description Archaeology as “material history” and the study of religions mutually reciprocate through their shared interest in the ability of people to establish memories and create imaginaries. Starting from this presupposition, the article evaluates the approaches used in archaeology to analyse the practices of past peoples. Because of the fragmented nature of the evidence, archaeological methods focus on detailed descriptions, chronologies and operationalising comparisons, all of which are also applicable to the study of religions. Beyond this, both employ theories from sociology as well as from economical, political, and cultural studies. In order to bring these tools to bear on the memory and the imaginary of (past) people, five analytical categories in which human activities can be discursively appropriated are distinguished: space, object, time, context, and practice. Memory and the imaginary converge in these categories, which can be investigated in both archaeology and the study of religions, making a reciprocal exchange between the disciplines possible. Archaeology can enrich the fields of religion and history and related societal discourses in a fruitful way by making clear similarities, differences, and changes in religions through their reflections in material culture, thus making religion more tangible, whereas archaeology benefits from the cross‐cultural and diachronic perspective present in the study of religions.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/1467-9809.12911
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2763217722</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2763217722</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2411-18cd77042adca0a4046ec442d92a65e889aad94a735a76764357fae230f4ab3d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMFKAzEQhoMoWKtnrwHP2ybZbLJ7LK1apVKo9hzGTbbdsjY1SSl78x18Q5_E3a4InpzLwMz3z8CH0DUlA9rUkHIhoywl2YCyjNIT1PudnKIeIYxFnDF5ji683xBCZEJED-mJxcuAJ8bjr49PHNYGL0wFobRbbAv8BMG4Eio8LX2wrsaw1Xjk8jUYW9lV3TINX65aPthj_jns9Z-Fv0RnBVTeXP30Plre3b6Mp9Fsfv8wHs2inHFKI5rmWkrCGegcCHDChck5ZzpjIBKTphmAzjjIOAEppOBxIgswLCYFh9dYx310093dOfu-Nz6ojd27bfNSMSliRqVkrKGGHZU7670zhdq58g1crShRrUrVilOtOHVU2SRElziUlan_w9XjfDHtgt9DK3Vo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2763217722</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do Ut Des – the Relation of Material History and Archaeology of Religion to the Study of Religions</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Rieger, Anna‐Katharina</creator><creatorcontrib>Rieger, Anna‐Katharina</creatorcontrib><description>Archaeology as “material history” and the study of religions mutually reciprocate through their shared interest in the ability of people to establish memories and create imaginaries. Starting from this presupposition, the article evaluates the approaches used in archaeology to analyse the practices of past peoples. Because of the fragmented nature of the evidence, archaeological methods focus on detailed descriptions, chronologies and operationalising comparisons, all of which are also applicable to the study of religions. Beyond this, both employ theories from sociology as well as from economical, political, and cultural studies. In order to bring these tools to bear on the memory and the imaginary of (past) people, five analytical categories in which human activities can be discursively appropriated are distinguished: space, object, time, context, and practice. Memory and the imaginary converge in these categories, which can be investigated in both archaeology and the study of religions, making a reciprocal exchange between the disciplines possible. Archaeology can enrich the fields of religion and history and related societal discourses in a fruitful way by making clear similarities, differences, and changes in religions through their reflections in material culture, thus making religion more tangible, whereas archaeology benefits from the cross‐cultural and diachronic perspective present in the study of religions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-4227</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9809</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1467-9809.12911</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Melbourne: John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd</publisher><subject>Archaeology ; Economics ; Evidence ; Memory ; Politics ; Religion ; Time</subject><ispartof>Journal of religious history, 2022-12, Vol.46 (4), p.726-758</ispartof><rights>2022 The Author. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Religious History Association.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0001-9244-508X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1467-9809.12911$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1467-9809.12911$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rieger, Anna‐Katharina</creatorcontrib><title>Do Ut Des – the Relation of Material History and Archaeology of Religion to the Study of Religions</title><title>Journal of religious history</title><description>Archaeology as “material history” and the study of religions mutually reciprocate through their shared interest in the ability of people to establish memories and create imaginaries. Starting from this presupposition, the article evaluates the approaches used in archaeology to analyse the practices of past peoples. Because of the fragmented nature of the evidence, archaeological methods focus on detailed descriptions, chronologies and operationalising comparisons, all of which are also applicable to the study of religions. Beyond this, both employ theories from sociology as well as from economical, political, and cultural studies. In order to bring these tools to bear on the memory and the imaginary of (past) people, five analytical categories in which human activities can be discursively appropriated are distinguished: space, object, time, context, and practice. Memory and the imaginary converge in these categories, which can be investigated in both archaeology and the study of religions, making a reciprocal exchange between the disciplines possible. Archaeology can enrich the fields of religion and history and related societal discourses in a fruitful way by making clear similarities, differences, and changes in religions through their reflections in material culture, thus making religion more tangible, whereas archaeology benefits from the cross‐cultural and diachronic perspective present in the study of religions.</description><subject>Archaeology</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Religion</subject><subject>Time</subject><issn>0022-4227</issn><issn>1467-9809</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkMFKAzEQhoMoWKtnrwHP2ybZbLJ7LK1apVKo9hzGTbbdsjY1SSl78x18Q5_E3a4InpzLwMz3z8CH0DUlA9rUkHIhoywl2YCyjNIT1PudnKIeIYxFnDF5ji683xBCZEJED-mJxcuAJ8bjr49PHNYGL0wFobRbbAv8BMG4Eio8LX2wrsaw1Xjk8jUYW9lV3TINX65aPthj_jns9Z-Fv0RnBVTeXP30Plre3b6Mp9Fsfv8wHs2inHFKI5rmWkrCGegcCHDChck5ZzpjIBKTphmAzjjIOAEppOBxIgswLCYFh9dYx310093dOfu-Nz6ojd27bfNSMSliRqVkrKGGHZU7670zhdq58g1crShRrUrVilOtOHVU2SRElziUlan_w9XjfDHtgt9DK3Vo</recordid><startdate>202212</startdate><enddate>202212</enddate><creator>Rieger, Anna‐Katharina</creator><general>John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9244-508X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202212</creationdate><title>Do Ut Des – the Relation of Material History and Archaeology of Religion to the Study of Religions</title><author>Rieger, Anna‐Katharina</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2411-18cd77042adca0a4046ec442d92a65e889aad94a735a76764357fae230f4ab3d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Archaeology</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Religion</topic><topic>Time</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rieger, Anna‐Katharina</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of religious history</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rieger, Anna‐Katharina</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do Ut Des – the Relation of Material History and Archaeology of Religion to the Study of Religions</atitle><jtitle>Journal of religious history</jtitle><date>2022-12</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>726</spage><epage>758</epage><pages>726-758</pages><issn>0022-4227</issn><eissn>1467-9809</eissn><abstract>Archaeology as “material history” and the study of religions mutually reciprocate through their shared interest in the ability of people to establish memories and create imaginaries. Starting from this presupposition, the article evaluates the approaches used in archaeology to analyse the practices of past peoples. Because of the fragmented nature of the evidence, archaeological methods focus on detailed descriptions, chronologies and operationalising comparisons, all of which are also applicable to the study of religions. Beyond this, both employ theories from sociology as well as from economical, political, and cultural studies. In order to bring these tools to bear on the memory and the imaginary of (past) people, five analytical categories in which human activities can be discursively appropriated are distinguished: space, object, time, context, and practice. Memory and the imaginary converge in these categories, which can be investigated in both archaeology and the study of religions, making a reciprocal exchange between the disciplines possible. Archaeology can enrich the fields of religion and history and related societal discourses in a fruitful way by making clear similarities, differences, and changes in religions through their reflections in material culture, thus making religion more tangible, whereas archaeology benefits from the cross‐cultural and diachronic perspective present in the study of religions.</abstract><cop>Melbourne</cop><pub>John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/1467-9809.12911</doi><tpages>33</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9244-508X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-4227
ispartof Journal of religious history, 2022-12, Vol.46 (4), p.726-758
issn 0022-4227
1467-9809
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2763217722
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Archaeology
Economics
Evidence
Memory
Politics
Religion
Time
title Do Ut Des – the Relation of Material History and Archaeology of Religion to the Study of Religions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T11%3A12%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20Ut%20Des%20%E2%80%93%20the%20Relation%20of%20Material%20History%20and%20Archaeology%20of%20Religion%20to%20the%20Study%20of%20Religions&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20religious%20history&rft.au=Rieger,%20Anna%E2%80%90Katharina&rft.date=2022-12&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=726&rft.epage=758&rft.pages=726-758&rft.issn=0022-4227&rft.eissn=1467-9809&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1467-9809.12911&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2763217722%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2763217722&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true