bell 2007 ritual definition

8/12/2019 Bell 2007 Ritual Definition

1/7

276 CAROLlNE HUMPHREY AND JruVIES LAIDLAW

~ ~ e 5 h o u ~ ~ s ~ : ~ ; Y C u l t : Religious Innovation and Transmission in Papua NewG . Cl rendon Press Oxford. . .

2004 i ~ ~ r : J e : a ; f R:ligiosity: A C o ~ z i t i v e Theory ofReligious TranStmsswn.Altru\tlira, Walnut Creek, CA. .

H dJame s Laidlaw (edttors)V\Thitehouse, arvey, an rr d Comparative Anthropology ofReltgwn.2004 Ritual and Memor) : lOWar aAltaMira, Wahtut Creek CA.

12.RESPONSE:

DEFINING THE NEED FOR A DEFINITIONCatherine Bell

This piece responds to the ideas and themes o::pressed so well in the CotsenAdvanced fi_eminat conference papers and conversation. It explores the benefits andn c , . o ~ , ) i l . N V ; : > , ,tiabilttJesJOr a r c h a p f ~ ~ [ more culturally detailed arguments about the natureof ritual while u n d e r s c o 1 i r J : ~ h e basic themy ofa pmctice approach to ritual.One of the first realizations the Cotsen Advanced Seminar broughthome to me is ritual theory s relative ignorance of archaeology in theformulation of its ; ~ T ; i i f l g theories. Moreover, our weak attention toh h ~ . ~ h d b h d '' oat arc aeo ogy as a to say a out anctent ntua ts mate e y ~comitant misundersta:nding of archaeology s needs with regard to a theo-ry of ritual. The few major studies of Neolithic ritual that have addressedthe topic of ritual in terms broad enough to engage multiple fields havebeen extremely speculative, with imposed agendas marked by the paucityof empirical data; so cultural theorists may have been rather auickjn their,rant\Jphassessments. Recently, of course, a fresh wave of nterest, stirred Qy schol-ars of cognitive theory (the mo st common term used), has depicted thefunction of prehistoric ritual using evolutionary assumptioi:ts. Most ofJ UI('lt: ' lthese accounts ~ J ? _ c l i 6 : w questions of meaning in favor of a focus on theadaptive qualities of ritual as a form of communication. And, to the extentthat these shldies speculate about tl1e beginnings of ritual in the earliesthuman communities (or simply those communities that only archaeology

c ~ n find), tl1ey must work without ~ n . t t . so to speak; Qnly the credibilityof their arguments can assure further interest in their line of reasoning. Ina recent overview of what is happening in the study of ritual today, I havetried to assess many of these cognitive approaches; and I found that, forall their emphasis on adaptive functions, tl1ey have been...f.QD-.tent, likesome colleagues in Classics or even in the nineteenth-century study ofreligion, to remain almost entirely speculative, with no serious engagement of archaeological works (Bell 2005). So I have learned a great dealat this conference about the many other ways in which archaeologists arethinking about ritual and the concrete problems they face.

277


2/7

278 CATHERJNE ELLl Ot..l 1';1.)-,{ f te ests I am not sure that I can con-Despite this c o n v g g ~ - ~ 0 m r : oblems and dilemmas.

tribute significantly__


3/7

280 CATHERINE BELLregular shared performance; unfamiliar oarts. can. evoke the alien styles' Zl'>ltlf{l (ou,;o l:ttr,tlntD.vo'i-l uof other regions or even the i l l . ~ - ~ 3 J . Y ~ . e s s or recent mventton. vveknow there are always variations, both intended and unintended; thereare misinterpretations and . m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n , g s k : t . ~ ~ ~ d ' l . there a r ~ variousforms of resistance to anythmg meant to be s\veepmg, regulanzed, and

f - 8 i i ~ ~ e d . This is not to say that beliefs and rites are always unsystematc l ust want to argue that "system" is a \vord that can.appear useful, butit is apt to se.n_d_us gif with a misleading set of connecu.ons. For example,do we interpret artifacts by linking them to those bebefs that show thegreatest coherence? In this way, Marija Gimbutas's female figuresappeared to .attest to a coherent pre Indo European understanding_ offertility that was interpreted to build a more _coherent and _compelbngsystem with each new find no matter how dtverse t h ~ settmgs, styles,time periods, or lack of supporting evidence from outstde the data system (Gimbutas 1989).

MEMORYSome papers and discussions have raised the very interesting_ issue ofmemory, a topic that many fields have begun to take more s e n o u s l ~ , ?rself-consciously, since Connerton's (1989) provocative How SoaettesRemember among others. Humphrey and Laidlaw (1994) in The rchetypal

ctions of itual and McCauley and Lawson (2002) in Ritual on the 1Windalso look to memory as a critical aspect of the social life of ritual practices.I have not thought of memory in these terms. I suppose I have seen it asa matter of the schemes and strategies that people absorb, both consciously and unconsciously, as from the architecture about them, for e x a ~ p l e .They do nqt recognize fully how the architectu re was created or o d t ~ e daccording to shared schemes that are socially and c u l t u r ~ l l y e f f ~ c l : l v e ,schemes that can be learned simply from using the space as It ts destgned.This ~ a s particularly appa rent in our discussions of the "plaza." We maynot know exactly what was done in s m ~ ancient Mesoamerican plazas,but the types of activities they o u l d ~ ~ d give us' a very different set ofsocial possibilities than those gener ated by a city laid out with a strict gridformation and a central Great Bath, as in the city of Mohenjpdaro. Theplaza differs so dramatically from the linked caves, sn_1all and is?lated _onmountaintops, that one begins to look for other mstances m whtchschemes of similar contrasts are used. Or a central plaza may suggest aPublic replication of some domestic form (as may the caves, of course).' ~ " ' ' ' ' '''he sense of centrality may be one of human__c.;QlJJmonallry-, as m one pea

1i DEFll\'fNG THE NEED FORA DEFll\TITION 281ple.politi.cally-defined, or ~ n o ~ g a n i z e ~ marketplace for exchanges amongpeoples who do p,ot ; :t,de l J ~ l i n k e


4/7

282 CATHERINE BELLCROSS-CULTURAL DIMENSIONS

We have also spoken about the usefulness of more cross-cultural evidenceto help explaina ritUal or the ways in which an activity might have been ritualized. One of mY teachers waS Mircea Eliade, perhaps the most famouscross-cultu ralist since Sir James Frazer, with all the-strengths and weak

nesses i m _ p ~ i e d bY sUch a title. I tend to regard cross-cultural s'tudies asi 5 d i S { l b ~ ~ a @ e _ b a c k g r o u n d knowledge. LiJsewisf, someone could use my listof six commOn ways to ritmlize t o ~ t i _ ~ - ' ~ _ f f the characteristics fou nd at,say, a fcifmal high dinner at a Cambridge college, and it would not be aUseless exercise (Bell 1997:138-163). But both the cross-cultural and thestructurally focused analysis should look beyond the ritualized practice in'cjU'estion to examine it in regard to something else-other culh1ral eventsor other logically possible ways of acting. I-would emphasize the primaryimportance of maintaining, as much as possible, the location of th practicewithin a larger_serui_clo_gical field that is created by that practice in that particular cultural c o m m u n i t y . A _ b ~ a ~ M - d a y offering on stones atop a hill?Knowledge of such th.ings in other cUltures will help identify possibly relevant diinensions to this one practice. And from ritualization lists like theone I published, you might find it significant that the r o u ~ ninvolved in this offering does not seem to entail any particular formalization. Yet perhaps the most import ant dimension is the offering's place in afield of ways of acting in that community: other offering practices, otherhilltop activities, o t h e r ~ e a k or u ~ t c activities, as well as evidence of thehistory of such related practices. The restoration of the daybreak hilltoprite to as large an immediate cultural and historical context as can be handled might seem something to be taken for granted by the modern archaeologist. Yet there can be too much attention given to the more mechanicaland time-consuming aspects of cross-cultural parallels or listed ritual features, both of which detract from how the practice is operating in its owncontext. VVe mu : ~ ( , ~ . .uttered tn passmg, But we wtll never know what tt meant to them any-how. That sentiment implies, of course, that there is a certain type ofmeaning that we Cannot really expect to go after because it would be so

283hard to find or even know i we had fo d .ity the phrase suggests that th I un 1 ~ . But I also think in its banal-. e rea meanmg of tl I anctent participants tho ht f . th 1e ntua ts what the I . ug o It, ra er than all th tha nught be analyzed Ofcou . e_ o er ways tl1e ritu-. rse we could Imt d. I .small victory this view co ld be 'd . ne tate y apprectate what au sat to repres ent A assumed with great author ity tllat the r . . . t ttmes, lt has beenall about_what they are doit . . p actittoners do not know much at

But there are otller o n ~ t " ' f ' lg t t Is ~ l e professional who can explain it.f l o - N n e . o . . , , J h u ~ ' Q , ' T ..O.J2Qf3 complications to this cnrrectio f co shortsw teaness The senn th - n o _one xonn~ : : = : ~ ~ mem. at we will knpractices really meant to tll . . never ow what someneed for archaeology to te pra.ctttioners was evoked more to defend these up tts own category a d d fiThe importance of bein bl ll n e tntt ton of ritual.u r ~ t - , , , , A ~ ~ g a e to ta < to one 31 th 1 1J Q ~ t i n c a t t o n for this top d h 10 er c ear Y was anot her. - own approac to definition.For archaeolog1sts worki . .hel "llo'l,c.-.Ln th . ng at ancient sttes where there is so littlPcL. : L-tl lle e function of the lace . e toused it, it is often probabl . p and the hves of the people whoY quite accurate t o co 1 d h . .know what a place-and t'ts . . . nc u e t at we wtll neveractivtttes meant to th tl1ere. But we do not want t b . e generaTions wh. 0 live.do e saytng so we a

we are not going to ask those q n T-xr h re not gomg to look there;ues ons. vve ave to s h ,areas where it is really hard, B .f ay t ats one of thenot oi . ecause I we were to c o n c l u d ~ that we. g ng to look there, then we wOuld likel - f a 1 1 ~ { f rt Viin'\}v\llareImposed assumptions and categ . .th 1l t h Y ~ - - ; - ~ - on our ownamined reneat from s . on:bsi, WI a e JustificatiOn of an unex-ome tmposst e mora Thi pll(ltJ


5/7

284 CATHEPJNE BELLof the phenomenon. \Ve w-ill disagree quite .fundamentally; we will talk

.,p.J Lone another q u i t e J ? ~ f ~ e will think we are.in agreement a:nd_gooff in quite different directions. It is very frustrating for those whodefinitional order is a necessary first step. Thinking and talking and wnt-ing about ritual and ritualization, all of which def ine a field of inquiry, willproceed in a very untidy and disorganized manner. There are endlessexamples among comparable terms, such as myth, r e l i g i o ~ , ~ ~ ~ y h ~ 1 ~ dnature. Someone will propose a definition, someone else wtll age tt;both sides will make some good points; but there -will be no consensus atthe end of the day. Elsewhere, in regard to the idea of religious "performance," I have written, "Criti cal terms are not critical because they containanswers but because they point to the crucial questions at the heart ofhow scholars are currently experiencing their traditions of inquiry and thedata tl1ey seek to encounter." Currently "we are entering an era in whichwhat we want to learn cannot be learned if our terminology overdetermines the theater of engagement" (Bell 1998:220-221).

I am arguing that a clear, generally accepted definition is u s e ~ l o ~ l yin those projects that are focusing on something else. In an exarrunattonof domestic space, we might agree tl1at "society" means such-and-such,but we would hesitate to agree to any a priori meaning of "tl1e family,"even though it would seem to make tl1e project easier.

WI-JOSE PROJECT?The issue of a clear definition of ritual as an initial or central project raisesa more difficult question. In talking together about ritual and ritualization,are we looking for heuristic terms for tl1e field to use, which is a necessarye i i ' ~ l P . . : r i s e for commnnication and understanding, or do we wan t ternlS that>vill help us uncover what our ancient peoples might have thought about thesort of things we think they were doing in a ritual-like way? . .

In one example mentioned, an excavation revealed a room wtth a htghbench that may have held some figurines; the bench does nut look like itwas used for normal household activities, assuming those were food preparation, storage, sleeping, and the like. \Vhat terms and what' conceptualassociations do we have to help usJl ls_h...Qut the possible uses and implications of this bench? I have previously proposed the term "ritualization" for _' Cf Q_pQI \ ~ < , 0 ' \ . b C l d. f l tthis purpose not because tt ett er captures a yc a tc sense o w 1athe activities at tl1e bench were or what they meant to tl1e locals, butbecause it is better at keeping those questions in front of us. A priori definitions of ritual can impose too many assumptions. The language of ritualization tries to minimize these assumptions. If the Cycladians were doing

DEFL\TJ::l.\iG THE NEED FOR A DEFINITION 285something o ther than-what we would consider straightforward food storageor some c ~ m p a r a b l e domestic routine, then they were making distinctions

a m ~ n g . t h _ e t r . ':"ays of acting. Ritualization keeps our terminological focus onthetr dtstJ.nctJ.on-making, a key to their understanding and creation of aworld. I would like to keep our current disciplinary terms very loose inorder to apply them to many forms of performance until we are able to

~ d : r ~ t a n d their terms and distinctions. Wtth such a loose language, thedisciplme would have areas of agreement and disagreement, and even subconversations content to remain independent of the larger chaos. If someconsensus does emerge, it signals either t h e k ~ e of interest in ritual perse, or a,weariness t h a ~ ~ l l yield to a new crop of challenges before too long

Is the loose heunst:J.c language of ritualization able to rise to the challenge thrown out to us at the beginning of this seminar by ProfessorRenfrew? .He asked, how would one defend the claim that a particularstmcture 1s a temple? A definition of ritual is needed, he argued; todemonstrate a temple. That is a very "real-world" challenge. The language of i ~ a l i z a t i o n is useful in describing a space that is a building butnot domest_Ic sp.ace: perhaps by being too small or too large; among other.features. Rih1ahzat1on makes us focus on what is different and similarwithin h e ~ m i o l o g y of architecture tl1at tl1is one site exhibits. f his society made. no distinctions at all benveen addressing their gods for fertility

a n ~ - ? - l l . e . t 1 . ~ f i s ~ 1 f o ~ a meal, then it might be hard to argue for temples orre tgwn as distmguished cultural entities in that society. There are societies that work very hard to rid themselves of ariy significant distinction

b e n v e ~ n sacred a ? ~ the profane, by either sacralizing everything orprofanmg It. In Hastdtc communities, men will tie their shoes in themorning in a particular order with specific prayers. There are Zen meditations for emptying o n e s . ~ 2 : , \ E ~ s , a functional reminder that no realm isoutside the practice of Zen. Initial distinctions benveen technical activities and rih1al activities can give_ us very clear descriptions of a temple but. ul


6/7

286 CATHERINE BELLin -many others: what is different is just what the social actors would invoketo- distinguish their domestic spaces from other ones closed o.r o p e t ~ . . . _ _ _ , _where mundane interactions with gods or other powers are posstble. LtkeProfessor Renfrew, we would all look for evidence of supernatural forces toidentify a temple, but if there is any evidence to had, it should-_ speak tous about how the sacred is dissinguished, or not; t t should not snnply be

t , l t . , . ~ f > f l T t 4f d d f h [ k [important because ir.._contQl:Dls to broader un erstan mgs o w at ts 1 e y.I do not think all ritualization is religious, although I am never quttesure what that word means. But I think people do ritual instead of otherthings, and they often do it when. they think to invoke i ? e n ~ f y othersources of power as accessible to them. Even if an event IS n t u a ~ t z e d verymarginally, such as the example of the installation o f ~ Camb.ndge .d@,the ritualization will be sufficient in form or symbolism to mvoke theauthority of medieval clerical power and prestige; but both its form andsymbolism will not be so developed or consistent with church rites as toimply any real conviction that church authority is at stake in the currentsituation. The separation of the secular and the religious will be observedwith its o-wn-set of ritualized distinctions. Yet the installation's slight echoing of the extra authority of the religious sphere is necessary for c o ~ structing the actual authority and prestige meant to be a c c ~ r d e d t ~ e position. We could not give it any real rank if we sent an email thanking thelucky person for taking on the job. The c h o i n ~ ~ t ; ~ ~ f J r , ~ l \ ~ i o u s military orders is a particularly common way of tmpartmg fn: author:ty ofthose institutions to other social positions that have no particular clatm tobeing religious or military. Ritualizing helps us analyze a p o s s i ~ l e templesite as well as the places that may have played on the symbolism of thetemple to create other forms of temple-like authority.

POWERThere were a few references to political-power and political contro l in the

I reminded myself that power is also not a system, nor does it~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ r o ~ m2 ~ o n e direction; rather, it works to lock peoplebeen reexamining some of my earlier work inlight 1 we have entered a post-postmodern andcertainly apost-Foucaultian world (Belll992:199-223). How does a postFoucaultian context enable a more delicate or calibrated argument aboutthe operations of power in society? I have maintained that ritual is thething to do when one is negotiating for authority1 and when the power\L,.,nQ;.c,T\ h [ Yet everyonethat one needs to tap must ave an extra-communa source.has to be empowered in some way or to some extent by such an appeal in

\YrJI" ('1.}(.

DEFII\'ING THE NEED FOR A DEFINITION 28:order to bring power into the community from outside it. You do ritua

~ h e n you are not exercising other forms of u ~ ~ o ~ t f Y c m ; _ t r ~ < ; ? l u - 9 ~ ? J..QQ.Jl Peopl e gather for what seems to be a rathe r t o P - C l . ~ pdWel:f;ta'}r'irthe enthronement ceremonv of a kinP' Qf cmeen as opposed to somfl ' i > J f ( L ~ l ' ; _ / ~ r : t J . . ' ) t [ ; : t \ _ r : : < . O ;.tc,q;,'flf . ~ _ < . U / ~ 1 1 \ J ; z~ ~ a s s - r . o o t s - e n ~ n t . Cttlzens bow ilie1r heads because they are for-bidden to watch the emperor's carriage go by. In the se situations the ritualization of activities.assures the citizens that in some culturall; convol ~ a y each of them participates a bit in the schemes that identify andchannel .the power entering their community. The empowerment that

~ o m . e s With these forms of ritualization may be fairly marginal, even quitetlluswnary to our eyes; but t be effective, and hence a real social option,

~ v e r y o n e ~ a s to emerge from the rites \vith a sense of having participatedm somethmg that e a v e s t h ~ m feeling a bit empowered too , able to deplOys c ~ e m e s of authonty, even tf they do not believe in or profit by everythingsad and done. It's a bi t like a conference, actually.

Of course, as one person mentioned, the community may not understand what is happening. Certainly Caroline Humphrey's paper-remindsus that _the agent of ritual action is only minimally the agent of what is

~ 1 a p p e n m g ; the a ~ e n t did not write the s c r i p t ~ h e or she is just follmvingtt, and usually With no particular intentions about it. I do not contestmuch in that analysis; I have identified s ome of the same points in my owne ~ p l a n a t i o n of.mist:.e:Qgnition. Yet I would emphasize how the agent issoli the author of these actions, at least as much as we are the authors ofanything we do; it is a continuum of u t h o r ~ h i p , perhaps, but I wouldwant to recognize the creativity and complexity of the actor as actor evenwhen acting in the role of a so-called follower. This difference in o u ~ the- 2-fl{,(,


7/7

288 CATHERINE BELLthe argwnent of my first book: tha tbiases and nttionalities. Indeed, ~ f a t wdas t multaneously analyze theory- lfullyt we ono s1 lwe cannot ana yze ntua . . .1 . . and differences from-ritua ,. d d itS stmt annes t .making and un erstan h d thinking about nt - 1_: l t u r ~ a r a c t i c e . I ave enjoye .or ntual-maKmg, as a cu ~ t i l .d th ory And I enjoyed thmk-. b fthe ot proVl es e .ual priman ly ecause . f heological evidence and int er-. l h ry m this context o arc Iing about ntua t eo . . d the theoretical practices o my. b of the fotltt proVl es d pretatlon ecause " 1 . , 'dentifies 50 little as har eVlld h . th focus on re tgwn 1 .own fie , w ete e l laza-that we generate 1nter-1 tl ed pot or a centra Pdence-h ce an unear 1 . 1 . "l' ality" to random exam- . t' ns hke app Ylng trmnpretations o m t e r ~ r ~ t , . . would love to smb my toe againstples of o - c a l l e d r o t s s w m z u ~ _ acttvny. I

something a bit more earthy.REFERENCES CITED

Bell, Cathe rine . l P . Oxford University Press, Oxford.1992 Ritual Theoty, ~ t t u d " D " t l c ~ c e . ons Oxford University Press,1997 Ritual: Perspecttves an nnenst .Oxford. InC .,. al Termsfo1 Religious Studies, edited by1998 Performance. n IC chI Ch Univers tty Press, tcago.Mark C. Tay or. tcago_ ) I Em.ydopedia ofReligions, revised2005 Rimal (Further Perspect lves . n 7848 7856di . l ll edited by Lindsay Jones, pp. . - .e tlon, vo ,Macmillan, New York.

Connerton, Paul Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.1989 How Societies Remember.Gimbutas, Marija H er San Francisco.1989 The Language of he Goddess. arp 'Grimes, Ronald L. . l S l .rReligion edited by William Braun2000 Ritual. In Guzde to t ~ e tuay O ' dand Russell T. McCutcheon. Cassell,_Lon on.Humphrey, Caroline, and J at_Ues ~ a R i ~ l a ~ A Theory ofRitual Illustrated by the1 }y4 The Archetypal A awns r1.1 ttua t d -.Jain Rite ofWorship. Clarendon Press, Ox or .

R b N d E Thomas Lawson I vMcCauley, o e_rt ".'an M d P hological Foundations ofCultura rorms.Z002 Bringtng Rttual to 1 ~ n . rye b .dCambridge Universtty Press, Cam n ge.Reader, Ian . li . tivity' Japanese Journal ofReligious1991 Vi/hat constitutes re gwus ac .Studies 18 (4),373-376.Turner, Victor A .-CNdembu Ritual. Cornell University1967 The Forest of Symbols: spects OPress, Ithaca.

13.ARCHAEOLOGIES OF RITUAL

Evangelos K:yriakidis

fall the overanhing ovedapping and sometimes_Qverworked themes of thisbook, there are three that I lvould lilee the reader to keep in mind. First an issuesof definition and the relationship between ritual and religion. Second is the discipline ofanhaeology itself the material it deals with and the ways it is influenced by that material as a discipline, with cenain given abilities, limitationsand interests. And last come the various perspectives of tudy, some new and others old, that could be seen as fruit ful avenues for future research, different anhaeologies ofritual. In this final chapter, I will discuSs mainly the fit-stand the thinlthemes, though still refining to the second (for which see also chapter 2).

A DEFINITION OF RITUAL AND ITS lNIPLICATIONS1"'"1.-...Vf- o

bell 2007 ritual definition

Documents