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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of religious history 2022-12, Vol.46 (4), p.726-758 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
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 & 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 |