The Archaeology of Religion: Cultures and Their Beliefs in Worldwide Context [2 ed.] 9781032106403, 9781032106397, 9781003216353

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
List of Illustrations
Acknowledgments
Part I Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion
1 Introducing the Archaeology of Religion
Why Archaeology and Why Religion?
Ethics, Archaeology, and Religion
Cultures and Their Beliefs in Worldwide Context
The Book’s Organization
2 Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past
Defining Religion
Anthropological Theories and the Origins of Religion
The Archaeology of Religion
Conclusion
3 The World of the Shaman
The Nature of the Shaman
The Shaman’s Tools
Finding Shamans in the Archaeological Record
Conclusion
Part II The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture
4 The First Spark of Religion: Neanderthals
Religion Before the Neanderthals?
Who were the Neanderthals?
Neanderthal Sites in Europe and Western Asia: Rituals in Caves?
Conclusion: Did the Neanderthals Really Have Religion?
5 Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas
Fundamentals of Hunter-Gatherer Religions
Ancient Hunter-Gatherer Religions of North Asia
Populating the Americas
Arctic Hunter-Gatherers
Paleoamerican Hunter-Gatherers
Conclusion
6 Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia
The Archaeology of Rock Art
Cultures of the Kalahari
Southern African Rock Art
Aboriginal Cultures of Australia
Australian Stone Monuments and Rock Art
Rock Art and Dreamtime
Conclusion
Part III Religions in Europe and Western Asia
7 Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic: From Cave to Village
Upper Palaeolithic Rock Art in Europe
Figurines in the Upper Palaeolithic
Neolithic Europe and Western Asia
Conclusion
8 European Megaliths, Religion, and Power
Pre-Megalithic Northwestern Europe
Early Megaliths: Menhirs
Henge Sites
The Long Barrow Builders
Why Build Megalithic Monuments?
Conclusion
Part IV Religions in the Americas
9 The Mound-Building Cultures of North America
Early Mound-Building Cultures
The Hopewell Tradition
The Mississippian Culture
Conclusion
10 Puebloan Cultures of the American Southwest
The Ancestral Puebloans: Early Settlement
Chaco Canyon and Pueblo Bonito
Conclusion
11 Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire
The Olmecs
Teotihuacan
The Aztecs
Conclusion
12 Lords and Gods: Religions of Andean South America
An Early Andean Center: Chavín De Huántar
Before the Inca: The Moche and The Nazca
A Patchwork of Andean Kingdoms
The Inca Empire
Conclusion
Part V Religions in South and East Asia
13 From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond: Religions in South Asia
South Asia Today
The Harappan Civilization
The Arrival of the Indo-Aryans
Harappans, Indo-Aryans, and the Rise of Hinduism
Classical Period Hinduism and the Origins of Buddhism
14 Religion in Ancient China: Elites and Ancestors
Religion and Culture in Neolithic China
Bronze Age China: The Earliest Chinese States
The Shang Dynasty
The Late Shang Dynasty
The End of the Shang Dynasty: The Rise of the Zhou
Conclusion
Part VI Africa and the Middle East
15 Religion and Empire in Egypt
Ancient Egypt
Conclusion
16 Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia
Ancient Mesopotamia
The Sumerian Civilization in the Uruk and Early Dynastic Periods
The Akkadian Empire
Sumer, Akkad, and the Power of Religion
17 Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism
The First Patriarchs Emerge
Canaanite Religion and the Philistines
The First Israelite Empire
Conclusion
18 Revitalizing the People: The Origins of Christianity and Islam
The Roman Levant and the Origins of Christianity
Muhammad and the Origins of Islam
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

The Archaeology of Religion

The new and updated edition of The Archaeology of Religion explores how archaeology interprets past religions, offering insights into how archaeologists seek out the religious, ritual, and symbolic meaning behind what they discover in their research. The book includes case studies from around the world, from the study of Upper Palaeolithic and hunter-gatherer religions to religious structures and practices in complex societies of the Americas, Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China. Steadman also includes chapters on the origins and development of key contemporary religions—Judaism, Christianity, Islam, among others—to provide an historical and comparative context. Three main themes are threaded throughout the book. These main themes involve the intersection between cultural and religious structures (“religion reflects culture”), including the importance of environment in shaping a culture’s religion, the role religion can sometimes play as a method of social control, and the role religion can sometimes play as a key component in revitalizing a culture. Updated with new discoveries and theories and with two new chapters (one on hunter-gatherer religions; one on religions in East Asia) and with new sections on Neolithic Western Asia, the book remains an ideal introduction for courses that include a significant component on past cultures and their religions. Sharon R. Steadman is SUNY Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the State University of New York at Cortland. She is Director of the Rozanne Brooks Ethnographic Museum and Director of the archaeological excavations at Çadır Höyük in central Türkiye. Her fieldwork has focused on Near Eastern archaeological work across the Middle East, Cyprus, and the Transcaucasian region. She has also carried out ethnographic work in Türkiye and India. Her research focuses on the archaeology of architecture, the investigation of ancient religions, and cultural responses to climate change.

The Archaeology of Religion

Cultures and Their Beliefs in Worldwide Context Second Edition

Sharon R. Steadman

Second edition published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Sharon R. Steadman The right of Sharon R. Steadman to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First published in 2009 by Left Coast Press, Inc. Published in 2016 by Routledge ISBN: 978-1-032-10640-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-10639-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-21635-3 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353 Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC

For Girish, still the Lord of the Mountain

Contents

List of Illustrations xi Acknowledgmentsxxiii PART I

Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion1   1 Introducing the Archaeology of Religion Why Archaeology and Why Religion?  3 Ethics, Archaeology, and Religion  5 Cultures and Their Beliefs in Worldwide Context  7 The Book’s Organization  12

3

  2 Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past Defining Religion  14 Anthropological Theories and the Origins of Religion  15 The Archaeology of Religion  20 Conclusion 30

14

  3 The World of the Shaman The Nature of the Shaman  31 The Shaman’s Tools  37 Finding Shamans in the Archaeological Record  40 Conclusion  46

31

PART II

The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture47   4 The First Spark of Religion: Neanderthals Religion Before the Neanderthals?  49 Who were the Neanderthals?  50

49

viii  Contents

Neanderthal Sites in Europe and Western Asia: Rituals in Caves?  53 Conclusion: Did the Neanderthals Really Have Religion?  62   5 Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas Fundamentals of Hunter-Gatherer Religions  63 Ancient Hunter-Gatherer Religions of North Asia  66 Populating the Americas  68 Arctic Hunter-Gatherers  71 Paleoamerican Hunter-Gatherers  76 Conclusion  81   6 Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia The Archaeology of Rock Art  82 Cultures of the Kalahari  83 Southern African Rock Art  89 Aboriginal Cultures of Australia  93 Australian Stone Monuments and Rock Art  99 Rock Art and Dreamtime  101 Conclusion 111

63

82

PART III

Religions in Europe and Western Asia113   7 Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic: From Cave to Village Upper Palaeolithic Rock Art in Europe  116 Figurines in the Upper Palaeolithic  123 Neolithic Europe and Western Asia  128 Conclusion  138   8 European Megaliths, Religion, and Power Pre-Megalithic Northwestern Europe  139 Early Megaliths: Menhirs  141 Henge Sites  144 The Long Barrow Builders  152 Why Build Megalithic Monuments?  153 Conclusion 155

115

139

Contents ix PART IV

Religions in the Americas157   9 The Mound-Building Cultures of North America Early Mound-Building Cultures  159 The Hopewell Tradition  164 The Mississippian Culture  169 Conclusion  176

159

10 Puebloan Cultures of the American Southwest The Ancestral Puebloans: Early Settlement  177 Chaco Canyon and Pueblo Bonito  179 Conclusion  189

177

11 Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire The Olmecs  190 Teotihuacan  193 The Aztecs  195 Conclusion 211

190

12 Lords and Gods: Religions of Andean South America An Early Andean Center: Chavín De Huántar  213 Before the Inca: The Moche and The Nazca  218 A Patchwork of Andean Kingdoms  228 The Inca Empire  230 Conclusion  236

213

PART V

Religions in South and East Asia239 13 From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond: Religions in South Asia South Asia Today  241 The Harappan Civilization  246 The Arrival of the Indo-Aryans  261 Harappans, Indo-Aryans, and the Rise of Hinduism  262 Classical Period Hinduism and the Origins of Buddhism  264

241

x  Contents

14 Religion in Ancient China: Elites and Ancestors Religion and Culture in Neolithic China  270 Bronze Age China: The Earliest Chinese States  275 The Shang Dynasty  278 The Late Shang Dynasty  280 The End of the Shang Dynasty: The Rise of the Zhou  288 Conclusion  289

270

PART VI

Africa and the Middle East293 15 Religion and Empire in Egypt Ancient Egypt  295 Conclusion  314

295

16 Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia Ancient Mesopotamia  315 The Sumerian Civilization in the Uruk and Early Dynastic Periods 317 The Akkadian Empire  330 Sumer, Akkad, and the Power of Religion  333

315

17 Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism The First Patriarchs Emerge  335 Canaanite Religion and the Philistines  344 The First Israelite Empire  348 Conclusion  354

335

18 Revitalizing the People: The Origins of Christianity and Islam The Roman Levant and the Origins of Christianity  355 Muhammad and the Origins of Islam  370 Bibliography Index

355

379 419

Illustrations



1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Carter and Carnavron look into King Tut’s Tomb. Photo of an Easter Island moai “ancestor” statue. Photo of the Great Wall of China. Mid-nineteenth-century photo of an Arapaho Ghost Dance. Artistic rendering of a ritual. Note presence of stone basin, ritual vessels, and stone platform for table. Photo of Tungus shaman (Siberia) taken in 1883. Artistic rendering of an entranced shaman attempting to heal a victim of sorcery. Photo of nineteenth-century shaman’s clothing in Gun Galut, Mongolia. Note fringe and noise-making bells. Drawing representing the Upper Palaeolithic therianthropic figure painted in the Les Trois Fréres cave in France. The figure has human legs and feet and wears an animal headdress and skins over the torso. Sketch of anthropomorphic petroglyph figure with “rays” extending from the head, executed in “X-ray” style showing internal organs. Geometric pictographs in Little Blair Valley in southern California, created by the Payómkawichum culture hundreds of years ago. Artist reconstruction of a person painting a shamanic journey on a stone face. Map of sites mentioned in the chapter. Sketch of the Atapuerca “Pit of Bones” (“La Sima de los Huesos”) site. Illustration in the book The Outline of History, by H. G. Wells, showing “Neanderthal Man,” published in 1923; the drawing is by J. F. Horrabin. Artist reconstruction of more present-day understanding of Neanderthal appearance.

4 9 10 12 25 32 36 39

42 42 44 45 50 50 51 52

xii  Illustrations

4.5 Jewelry assemblage made of white-tailed eagle talons found in Krapina Cave in Croatia. 4.6 Sketch of burial placement in La Ferrassie cave in France. 4.7 Photo of the large stone slab with multiple cupules found lying over a child’s grave in La Ferrassie cave. 4.8 Artistic rendering of Neanderthal “flower” burial of Shanidar 4. 4.9 Artist reconstruction of the “Old Man of Shanidar.” 5.1 Map of North Asia and Siberian region where numerous Upper Palaeolithic and Neolithic sites exist along the many river valleys. 5.2 Bone and stone artifacts, possibly serving as amulets, from the Palaeolithic Siberian site of Denisova Cave. 5.3 Petroglyph image from the site of Oglakhty on the Middle Yenisei River in Russia, dating to several thousand years ago. Note that the figure wears a costume with fringe and plays a drum. 5.4 Top: Map of “Berengia” showing the land bridge between the Asian continent and Alaska during the Pleistocene. Bottom: Map of North America showing the Pleistocene period ice sheets; arrows show possible routes Paleoamericans may have taken southward sometime after crossing the Bering land bridge. 5.5 Examples of Clovis points recovered in 1807 now in the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. 5.6 Map of the Arctic cultural regions and sites discussed in the text. 5.7 Inuit man and his wife, Higilaq, who was a shaman in the northwest territories of Canada. 5.8 Modern Inuksuit, built at Igloolik Island, where there are Dorset and Pre-Dorset sites. 5.9 Top: Carved polar bear from the Dorset Culture site of d’Alamek in the Igloolik region, Canada. Bottom: Example of a ritual mask depicting a bear spirit. This mask dates to the 1800s and comes from the Yup’ik culture of western Alaska, just east of the Sugpiak cultural area. 5.10 Map of North American Paleoamerican sites discussed in the text. 5.11 Artistic recreation of the burial of a possible shaman, accompanied by a juvenile, at the Paleoamerican site of Horn Shelter, Texas. 5.12 Example of rock art from the Great Basin. Big horn sheep and human/human-like figures, Anasazi Trail, western Utah. 6.1 Map showing the location of the Kalahari Desert and Kalahari Bushman cultures.

55 58 58 60 61 67 67

68

69 70 71 72 73

75 77 79 80 84

Illustrations xiii

6.2 Top: Drawing of a Kalahari Bushmen encampment created in 1893. Bottom: Photo of Kua Bushmen camp in the eastern Kalahari, taken in 1976. Women grind maize in a mortar and remove skin from a donkey head in front of a hut. 6.3 Photo of hunters in the central Kalahari, taken in 1962. 6.4 Photo of a Tshwa trance healer in Manxotae, Botswana, taken in 1976 during a “trance dance” with women clapping behind the healer. 6.5 Top: Rock art showing people leading an animal (possible a “rain eland”) by rope shown by the dotted line at top. Bottom: Drawing of a rock painting from the Drakensberg region showing people leading a “rain bull” by a rope or thong; marks surrounding the animal and humans could represent sweat or blood. 6.6 Example of a trance dance painted on a rock face in the southern Drakensberg region. The figures are bent over, possibly expressing pain, liquid (blood?) runs from their noses, and white dots arrayed around them represents sweat flying off their bodies. 6.7 A therianthrope. 6.8 Map of sites and areas discussed in chapter, and area of Sahul and Sunda. 6.9 Uluru monolith in the “Red Center” of the northern territory state in central Australia. 6.10 Coroboree rock near Alice Springs. 6.11 Rock paintings at Hunter’s Cave near Uluru in the northern territory state. 6.12 Examples of male and female anthropomorphs from the Pilbara region. 6.13 Examples of “Archaic Faces.” 6.14 Rock engravings at Ewaninga near Alice Springs. 6.15 Photo of “caterpillar dreaming” painted rock art at Emily Gap. 6.16 Artistic rendering of ancient Aboriginal man painting at Jessie Gap. 6.17 Photo of rock art depicting Wanjinas, on the Barnett River, Mount Elizabeth Station in the Kimberley region. 6.18 Photo of Gwion figures at a site near the King Edward River in the Kimberley region. 6.19 Photo of Mimi style painted figures at Nourlangie in Kakadu National Park. Note the frenetic poses which distinguish them from the somewhat more sedate Gwion figures. 7.1 Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter. 7.2 Hand stencil in Gargas Cave, possibly missing digits.

85 86 88

91

92 92 94 98 100 101 103 104 105 106 107 109 110 111 116 117

xiv  Illustrations

7.3 Top: Photo of ice age animals painted on the wall of Lascaux Cave, France. Note dots or marks above the animal’s nose. Bottom: Photo of facsimile reproduction of deer and horse paintings in Lascaux cave in Dordogne France. Note dots underneath the animals. 7.4 Photo of facsimile reproduction painting of a therianthrope (a human male with a bird-like head) in Lascaux Cave, Dordogne, France. 7.5 Examples of female figurines from Upper Palaeolithic European sites: a. figurine from Willendorf; b. figurine from Dolni Vestonice; c. figurine from Hohle Fels; d. Sketch of “Rod and Breast” figurine from Dolni Vestonice. 7.6 Example of a “breast bead” from Dolní Věstonice. 7.7 Photo of carved ivory head from Brassempouy. 7.8 Examples of the varied types of female figurines in Neolithic Europe: a. female figurine known as the “enthroned goddess” flanked by animals; excavated at the site of Çatalhöyük (ca. 6000 bce); b. Neolithic female figurine (ca. 4500–3500 bce) from the Vinča culture (in modern Serbia); c. a seated female figurine holds a baby excavated at the (Post-Neolithic, ca. 4800–4500 bce) site of Sesklo, Greece. 7.9 Archaeological site of Çatalhöyük showing the 1960s excavations of Neolithic structures. 7.10 Top: Photo of reconstructed room (previously called a “shrine room”) within a house at Çatalhöyük showing molded bull’s heads protruding from the walls. Bottom: Photo of “bucrania” in a bench or platform within a room at the site of Çatalhöyük. 7.11 Reconstruction of the “vulture” wall paintings at Çatalhöyük. 7.12 Sketch plan of Lepenski Vir village. 7.13 Stone carved statues from Lepenski Vir. Left: Example of intricate designs. Right: Example of carved statue with fish-like features. 7.14 Photo of a stone sculpture from Lepenski Vir showing a human-like/fish-like figure displaying human (female) genitalia. 8.1 Left: Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter. Right: Inset of sites discussed located in the area surrounding Stonehenge in southwestern England. 8.2 Digital terrain model of hilltop causewayed enclosure at Hambledon Hill, UK. 8.3 Photo of the menhirs at Carnac. 8.4 Artistic reconstruction of ritual event in the midst of the Carnac area megaliths.

119 120

124 125 125

130 131

132 133 135 136 137 140 140 142 143

Illustrations xv

8.5 Top: Photo of Avebury in Wiltshire, England. Bottom: Photo of Silbury Hill. 8.6 Photo of Stonehenge. 8.7 Sketch of building stages at Stonehenge. 8.8 Artist reconstruction of a feast event at the village of Durrington Walls. 8.9 Sketch plan of the West Kennet tomb. 9.1 Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter. 9.2 Left: Sketch plan of Poverty Point. Right: Aerial photograph of the Poverty Point mounds, taken in 1938. 9.3 Photo of an Adena period pipe in the shape of a human being, on display at the Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio. 9.4 Left: Drawing of the Serpent Mound in 1848. Right: Lidar image of the Marching Bears Mound Group, Effigy Mounds National Monument (Iowa). 9.5 Sketch of two causewayed enclosure Hopewell sites: At the top is “High Bank Works” and at the bottom is “Hopeton Earthworks,” both located in the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park in central Ohio. 9.6 Left: Owl effigy pipe from the Hopewell culture. Right: Raven effigy pipe from the Hopewell culture. 9.7 Top: Aerial view of Monks Mound. Bottom: Artistic rendering of “Monk’s Mound” and the Cahokian center. 9.8 Drawing of the red stone Birger figurine. 10.1 Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter. 10.2 Photo of Great House ruins at Pueblo Del Arroyo (Chaco Canyon) showing the multi-story brick architecture of the connected rooms. 10.3 Photos and drawings of black-on-white cylindrical jars with geometric designs from Chaco Canyon. 10.4 Top: Photo of D-shaped Pueblo Bonito. Bottom: Sketch of D-shaped Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon. 10.5 Photo of large kiva at the site of Chetro Ketl in Chaco Canyon. 10.6 Artistic rendering of ritual in Pueblo Bonito kiva. 10.7 Left: Photo and drawing of Fajada Butte in Chaco Canyon. Right: Artistic rendering of Fajada Butte and the sun daggers at Fajada Butte. 11.1 Stone carving of Olmec head wearing a helmet (possibly such as that worn in the Mesoamerican “ballgame”), from the site of San Lorenzo. 11.2 Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter.

145 147 147 151 153 160 161 162 164

166 167 171 174 178 180 181 182 186 187 188 191 192

xvi  Illustrations

11.3 Top: View of the “Avenue of the Dead” in the ceremonial center of Teotihuacan. The Pyramid of the Sun is on the left. Bottom: Sketch plan of the Teotihuacan center. 11.4 View of the Pyramid of the Moon at Teotihuacan. 11.5 Top: View of the Temple of Quetzalcoatl (the Feathered Serpent). Bottom: Close-up of stone carving of Quetzalcoatl that decorates the temple. 11.6 Tovar Codex (a sixteenth-century book by a Spanish Jesuit priest) illustration of the Aztec foundation myth of Tenochtitlan. 11.7 Florentine Codex (created in the sixteenth century by a Spanish priest) displaying various ranks of Aztec warriors. 11.8 Tovar Codex illustrating the last Aztec king known as Moctezoma II. 11.9 Borbonicus Codex (a sixteenth-century image by a Spanish priests) illustrating the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl. 11.10 Stone carving of the Aztec calendar in the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. 11.11 Image from the Magliabechiano Codex (a sixteenth century book by a Spanish chronicler) of two priests (in the center) piercing tongue (left) and ear (right). 11.12 Left: Image from the Magliabechiano Codex showing a human sacrifice at the top of a temple. Right: Ceremonial Aztec knife similar to those used in human sacrifice. 11.13 Artistic rendering of the Xipe Totec gladiatorial ritual; the priest wears a flayed skin and watches the battle. 12.1 Map of Pre-Inca Andean sites and regions discussed in the chapter. 12.2 Sketch of Chavín Old and New Temples with courts. 12.3 Left: The Lanzón statue in the center of the Chavín temple. Right: A roll out drawing of the carvings on the statue. 12.4 Top: Drawing of the two religious structures at the Moche capital; Bottom: Example of the types of frescoes found at Huaca del Luna at the Moche capital. 12.5 Reconstruction of the Sipán burials showing the “warrior priest” and the accompanying burials surrounding him. 12.6 Artistic rendering of Moche sacrifice of warriors. A Moche lord prepares to drink from the goblet that holds the victim’s blood. 12.7 Artistic rendering of Nazca warrior with trophy head. 12.8 “Head jar” depicting a human face that could be used to replace the head in a Nazca burial. 12.9 Photos of Nazca lines showing a spider, a bird, and a monkey. 12.10 Map of Inca period sites and regions.

194 195 196 198 199 201 202 204 206 207 209 214 215 216 220 221 222 225 226 227 229

Illustrations xvii

12.11 Top: An Inca tunic made of cotton and camelid wool, exemplifying the finely woven cloth made primarily by Inca women; such garments were worn by Inca nobility. Bottom: An example of an Inca quipu record-keeping device consisting of strings with knots denoting specific information. 232 12.12 Reenactment of the Inti Raymi Festival, in Sacsayhuaman, Cusco.234 12.13 Artistic rendering of the “Ice Maiden” (far right) at the top of Mt. Nevado Ampato. After she consumed the chicha, she was sacrificed. 237 13.1 Map of Harappan sites discussed in the chapter. 242 13.2 Image in which Shiva (left), Vishnu (middle), and Brahma (right), approach the goddess Kali (not shown) in a painting from Himachal Pradesh, created around 1740. 245 13.3 Statue of Shiva in Bangalore, Karnataka; note the mark on the forehead which denotes the third eye of consciousness. 246 13.4 Photo of a typical household altar in a Hindu household in India. 247 13.5 Top: Plan of the “DK neighborhood” at Mohenjo Daro showing the excavated streets and buildings. Bottom: Photo of carefully constructed structures on a grid-plan at Mohenjo Daro. 249 13.6 Example of Harappan pictographic writing. 251 13.7 Top: Photo of the “Great Bath” at Mohenjo Daro. Bottom: Artistic rendering of ritual bathing in the Mohenjo Daro “Great Bath.” 252 13.8 Photo of a pipal tree, with close-up of leaf in inset. 254 13.9 Top: Photo showing terracotta figurines of two-horned bulls in the British Museum. Bottom: Photo of a Harappan seal depicting the seemingly one-horned “unicorn.” 255 13.10 Photo of a “Proto-Shiva” seal showing a figure seated in yogic position. 256 13.11 Photo of a seal showing what may be a horned goddess in a pipal tree possibly receiving offerings from a figure on bended knee; seven (female?) figures appear to be in attendance. 257 13.12 Photo of a Harappan female terracotta figurine wearing an elaborate headdress, jewelry, and belted kilt. 259 13.13 The “Priest-King” statue from Mohenjo Daro. 260 13.14 The Dhamek Stupa at Sarnath (the location where The Buddha gave his first sermon after achieving enlightenment). This stupa likely dates to the time of King Ashoka of the Mauryan Empire, ca. 249 bce). 268 14.1 Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter. 271

xviii  Illustrations

14.2 Plan of Jiangzhai village. 14.3 Examples of Yangshao pottery. 14.4 A ritual ax made of jade was a symbol of power and authority and represents the type of valuable burial goods in Longshan tombs (Xue and Xu 2017). 14.5 Layout of an Erlitou palace. 14.6 Left: Drawings of Erlitou Jua vessels. Right: Photo of a Jia tripod from the Erlitou culture. 14.7 Plan of Yanshi City and close-up of palace area (on the right). 14.8 Plan of Yinxu center showing residential and workshop areas, the royal cemetery, and the palatial/ceremonial precinct. 14.9 Plan of the royal cemetery (known as Xibeigang) at Yinxu. 14.10 Reconstruction of the Fu Hao Tomb. 14.11 Photo of one of the chariots found in the Yinxu royal cemetery, accompanied by horses sacrificed for the burial. 14.12 Left: A turtle plastron with divination inscription dating to the Shang Dynasty. Right: Oracle bone from an ox showing burn marks creating cracks that are read by the diviner. 14.13 Shang Dynasty bronze vessels. Top left: A wine cup possibly used as a ritual drinking vessel. Top right: Ritual wine cup. Bottom left: A finial (ornament) displaying what appears to be a human-animal hybrid. Bottom right: An upright bell decorated with a zoomorphic design, possibly meant to represent a mask. 14.14 View of a few of the terracotta soldiers and horses buried in the Qin emperor’s tomb. 15.1 Map of ancient Egyptian sites and regions. 15.2 Photo of the “Narmer Palette” found at Hierokonpolis. 15.3 Photo of Djoser’s “Step Pyramid” built of stone in a series of mastabas above ground. 15.4 Photo of Sneferu’s Bent Pyramid. 15.5 Photo of the “Great Pyramids” at Giza. Left: Khufu’s pyramid. Center: Khufu’s son Khafre’s pyramid. Right: Menkaure’s pyramid. 15.6 Nineteenth-century painting by David Roberts (1796–1864) of the Sphinx at Giza still partially under the sands of Egypt. 15.7 Top: Photo of the exterior of the Temple of Rameses III at Medinet Habu. Bottom: Model of the interior of the Temple of Rameses III at Medinet Habu on exhibit at the Milwaukee Public Museum (Wisconsin). 15.8 Drawings of Egyptian gods discussed in the chapter.

272 273 275 276 277 279 280 282 282 283 284

287 290 297 298 300 301 302 302

307 308

Illustrations xix

15.9 Artistic rendering of the embalming process. The embalmer, dressed as Anubis, hands an internal organ to an assistant for placement in a canopic jar. 311 15.10 Photo of Middle Kingdom limestone canopic jars (from the tomb of Lady Nephthys, Dynasty 12, ca. 1981–1802 bce) found in 1910–1911 at the Khashaba excavations at Meir, Middle Egypt. 312 15.11 The judgment scene in the Hall of Judgement. The deceased (a person named Hunefer, far left) is led by jackal-headed Anubis into the Hall; the deceased’s heart is weighed against Ma’at’s feather with Ibis-headed Thoth recording the judgment and Ammut poised to consume a failing heart; falcon-headed Horus then presents the successful Hunefer to Osiris (seated); Isis standing behind him. 313 16.1 Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter. 316 16.2 Left: Cylinder seal from southern Mesopotamia (ca. 3500–3100 bce), made of limestone, with the roll out displaying a ritual scene in front of a temple. Right: Cylinder seal made of jasper, dating to the fourth millennium bce in southern Mesopotamia; note hole drilled through center of seal so that it can be hung on a pin or string. 318 16.3 Left: Example of a headdress from the Royal Tombs of Ur (buried with an attendant in a tomb known as the “King’s Grave,” so named by the excavator), the beads are made jade of carnelian and lapis lazuli and the leaves are made of gold. Right: The “Goat in the Thicket” found in one of the Royal Tombs of Ur, made of gold leaf, copper, lapis lazuli, shell, and limestone.320 16.4 Scenes from the Adda Seal depict major Sumerian gods, all of whom wear six-horned hats: On the left is Ishtar who is has weapons rising from her wings; below her to her left is Shamash with rays of sun rising from his shoulders; he uses a weapon to travel through the mountains to rise in the morning; on the right is Ea (Enki) with water flowing from his shoulders. 322 16.5 Top: Examples of clay token “counters” in the top row of photo, and evolution of writing on tablets in the bottom row. Bottom left: Example of an early Sumerian clay tablet, showing pictographic symbols concerning grain. Bottom right: Example of an Early Dynastic period tablet concerning silver for the governor, written using cuneiform signs. 323

xx  Illustrations

16.6 Left: Terracotta wall panel depicting Enkidu from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Right: Relief from the throne room of a king of Dur Sharrukin (dating to the first millennium bce) depicting a “hero” that is likely Gilgamesh holding a weapon and a lion. 325 16.7 Plans of the White Temple and Eanna Precinct at Uruk. 327 16.8 Top: Example of an inscribed “clay nail”; the top of the nail could be painted and then inserted into columns or walls to create designs. Bottom: Recreation of columns that would have stood in the Eanna precinct in Uruk showing how clay nails were used to decorate columns and walls. 328 16.9 Example of a temple in the city of Ur, dedicated to Nanna/ Sin; this temple has been reconstructed both in ancient and modern times, including within the last two decades. 329 16.10 Sumerian stone “votive figurines” from the Early Dynastic period. Left: Likely a priest, over 41 inches tall. Right top: Male figurine of alabaster and black limestone, 11.5 inches tall. Right bottom: Female figurine of gypsum alabaster, 8.5 inches high. 331 16.11 Bronze head depicting either Sargon the Great or his grandson Naram-Sin.333 17.1 Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter. 336 17.2 Painting depicting a man labeled “Abisha the Hyksos” in a Twelfth Dynasty tomb in Egypt, likely referring to a foreign, possibly Canaanite, ruler. 338 17.3 Drawing of the Merneptah Stele in the Cairo Museum. 339 17.4 Artistic rendering of Israelites worshiping the Ark (and its contents) during the “wandering” in the wilderness. 341 17.5 A depiction of a battle between Egyptians and “Sea Peoples” (1198–1166 bce) in the tomb of Ramses III in Medinet Habu (see Figure 15.1). 343 17.6 Examples of Canaanite temple styles. 345 17.7 Left: Drawing of a figurine in the Israel Museum displaying a female figure that is likely Asherah. Symbols of her responsibilities are found in the twin children that suckle at her breasts (love) while animals frolic on her thighs (the hunt). Right: Image of Ba’al, god of storms/thunder, holding a thunderbolt and planting a spear while attended by a king. 346 17.8 Top: Examples of Philistine pottery from Ashdod showing more Aegean-style than Levantine decorative techniques. Right: Plan of a Philistine temple from the site of Tell Qasile. 348 17.9 Left: Plan of Solomon’s temple. Right: Artistic reconstruction of Israelite Temple built by Solomon. 352 17.10 Reconstruction of Herod the Great’s refurbished Second Temple in Jerusalem. 353

Illustrations xxi

18.1 Map of Roman Palestine/Judaean sites and regions discussed in the chapter. 356 18.2 View of the site of Masada in Israel where the Zealots successfully fended off the Romans for three years. 359 18.3 Top: Photo of the Qumran region near the Dead Sea showing the area with the caves that held the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bottom left: Examples of Dead Sea Scroll jars. Bottom right: Dead Sea Scroll known as the “Temple Scroll.” 362 18.4 Reconstruction of the Qumran community where Essenes might have lived in the first century ce.363 18.5 Top: Aerial photo of the Kfar Nahum (Capernaum) synagogue dating to the fourth-fifth century ce, which perhaps rests above an original synagogue in which Jesus may have spent time; the housing area surrounding it dates to the first century ce and within this area is a structure that may have belonged to Peter, Jesus’s first disciple. Bottom: Artistic rendering of “Peter’s house” at Capernaum, his fishing boat, and Jesus’s recruitment of his apostles. 366 18.6 Photo of the “Caiaphas ossuary” in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. 368 18.7 Map of Arabian sites and regions discussed in the chapter. 371 18.8 Example of third century ce pre-Islamic south Arabian script showing a dedication to a pre-Islamic god known as Talab, housed in the Museum of the Ancient Orient, Istanbul. 372 18.9 Stone carving showing the goddess Al-Lāt (center) in military dress standing atop a lion; the two females flanking her may be her sisters Al-‘Uzzā and Manāt. 373 18.10 Photo of Mecca and the modern pilgrimage. In the center is the holy Ka’aba. 377

Acknowledgments

This second edition would not be possible without the many students who have journeyed into the past with me to learn about these incredible ancient peoples. I also want to thank my colleagues and friends who made images available to me and gave advice on early drafts of chapters in this book: Daniel Adler, Aaron Brody, Jacob Damm, Rowan Flad, Laurel Hackley, Robert Hitchcock, Kent Johnson, J. Mark Kenoyer, Hollis Miller, Jennifer Ross, and Scott Stull. All infelicities in the book are of my own making.

Part I

Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

Chapter 1

Introducing the Archaeology of Religion

“Can you see anything?” asked Lord Carnarvon. “Yes, wonderful things,” answered Howard Carter as he gazed upon the contents of King Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922 (Figure  1.1). The methods used by Howard Carter in the early twentieth century and those employed by twenty-first century archaeologists differ greatly. Not only are the methods used divergent from a century ago, so are the motivations behind archaeological research. Nineteenth and early twentieth century seekers of ancient cultures too often sought to increase their own fame and fortune via their “archaeological” discoveries; artifacts and sometimes portions of entire buildings were whisked away to a foreign land for display and study. The objects themselves were deemed the vehicles by which ancient cultures would be revealed. Archaeology in the later twentieth and twenty-first centuries has changed immeasurably from those early days. While artifacts and features remain important, it is their context that is recognized as the vehicle into the past. This, combined with scientific methods and anthropologically driven interpretive frameworks, has allowed archaeological researchers to skillfully reconstruct past cultures in sometimes surprisingly intimate detail. What is it that inspires archaeologists to undertake the challenge of reconstructing the past? Furthermore, what responsibilities are embedded within these challenges? This opening chapter seeks to answer these questions as well as another: Why is the archaeology of religion important? A final section describes the themes and subjects found in succeeding chapters. Why Archaeology and Why Religion? Why should archaeology be considered an important field of study in the larger scheme of this increasingly globalized world? Many suggest that the most basic reason to study the past is to better understand the present, even to avoid “making the same mistakes twice.” One archaeologist suggests that it is informative to use the present as an interpretive tool for the past (Binford 1983), creating a connective loop of human experience. Humans seem to be curious about what their predecessors did, and archaeology seems to be the best-suited discipline DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-2

4  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

Figure 1.1 Carter and Carnavron look into King Tut’s Tomb (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

to satisfy that curiosity. The answer to the question of why archaeologists do what they do is interlinked with that answering why archaeology is considered a “legitimate” discipline for study: Human curiosity. However, it is a curiosity paired with a desire to embark on the unique challenge of compiling disparate clues, derived from multiple sources and using them as the foundation—usually one missing many footings—to recreate the structure of an inhabited past. The archaeologist’s role, most simply stated, then, is to offer informed interpretation of the past. In recent years, archaeologists have made tremendous efforts to include some discussion of the target culture’s religious beliefs. The reasons for this are both cultural and practical. On the cultural end, archaeologists have long known that the linkages between religious belief and daily life are indiscernible in many, if not most, cultures. However, the tools, methodologies, and interpretive

Introducing the Archaeology of Religion 5

frameworks to illuminate past belief systems have been long in the making; while far from perfected, using the methods of scholarly inquiry outlined in this book, bolstered by employing elements of psychology, sociocultural anthropology, and religious studies (Bertemes and Biehl 2001), archaeologists have proceeded in their endeavors to describe ancient beliefs. A second reason the archaeology of religion has grown in importance is due to increasing levels of cultural sensitivity by archaeologists. Every discipline has its standard of ethics unique to that field. Sociocultural anthropology has a strict code of ethics guiding the field anthropologist’s behaviors and appropriate actions regarding informants in cultures under study. However, the archaeological field has come to realize that archaeologists, just like anthropologists, also deal with the living every time we are in the field excavating a site, whether with local residents or the descendants of those cultures we investigate. We are, in those settings, bound by the same ethics as any sociocultural anthropologist. Even those working in their home countries must remember they are a guest in someone else’s place, whether it is in the next-door neighbor’s field or in a farflung state or province. A practical reason is that archaeologists are encountering past religions on a frequent basis. The combination of national infrastructural development and an increasing interest in cultural resources management (CRM) has led to the growth of a CRM field that requires archaeological investigation of many places destined for large-scale building projects. A number of countries have enacted regulations requiring their own versions of CRM-style work to be accomplished prior to the commencement of a project—or to be performed should cultural resources be discovered during the project. A 2005 Turkish government project, designed to build an underwater tunnel linking the European and Asian sides of Istanbul, was virtually halted by the discovery of a Byzantine port, and a largescale excavation was launched. The building project, including an intended subway, was revamped to accommodate the excavation of this enormous port and a museum. Such stories are becoming increasingly common as nations take a greater interest in preserving their cultural past. As more excavations are undertaken, a greater need to properly excavate—and interpret—sensitive cultural materials, particularly those pertaining to belief systems, has become paramount. Additionally, a growth in the worldwide practice of archaeology has created a priority to revisit—and reinforce—ethical concerns within the field. Ethics, Archaeology, and Religion When archaeology and ethics are mentioned in the same breath, the first thought centers on the serious issue of site looting, the black market trade in stolen antiquities, and issues surrounding the curation and display of cultural objects (Vitelli 1996; Zimmerman et al. 2003). However, embedded within the archaeology of religion are some further, field-specific, ethical concerns that must be considered.

6  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion The Ethics of “Proving” the Past

Those undertaking archaeological investigation must maintain absolute objectivity when interpreting the material culture within its context, particularly if there is other evidence available that pertains to the same culture, time period, or region. What has occasionally proved to be too tempting, particularly for archaeologists in earlier centuries, was to “prove” the past according to written records. This was particularly prominent in the field known as the “Biblical Archaeology” in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Important archaeological material was discarded because it didn’t “fit the texts” and thus contradicted what was assumed to be true based on biblical accounts (Insoll 2001; Bergquist 2001). Archaeologists must certainly be familiar with any written records pertaining to their research area—and even be guided by such records—but they must also recognize when the data derived from the material culture diverges from that written in the text. The material culture is the purest record of the past; the discipline of archaeology, therefore, must maintain that purity as much as possible in presenting that past. The Sacred Past

As travelers, when we enter a building or locale sacred to another culture, we think nothing of abiding by the behavioral codes practiced in that culture. Those who don’t are considered rude and disrespectful. What were the behavioral codes associated with sacred places and things in the past, and how can we, as archaeologists, abide by them and still do our work? In general, these are unanswerable questions because, in order to abide by behavioral codes, an archaeologist must discern what they were and the methods by which these are learned—i.e., by excavating sacred places and things—is almost certainly a violation of those codes. Where is the happy medium between the scientific investigation of the past to inform the present and preservation of the sacred past by leaving it undisturbed? Often, archaeologists are guided by the living descendants of past cultures. The “Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act” (NAGPRA) mandates behavioral codes for any archaeologist dealing with Native American sites, especially regarding any aspect of the material culture that may be considered “sacred.” In the Middle East, archaeologists are cautioned to be cognizant of burials on high mound sites, especially if they are quite close to the surface. The reason for this is that, often, Muslim families will decide to bury a loved one not in the local cemetery but on a high place with the deceased facing east (or toward Mecca). It is not only illegal but ethically wrong to excavate such burials, and, if they are discovered on an archaeological site, that area is left alone and the presence of the burials made known so that future excavators can also leave them undisturbed.

Introducing the Archaeology of Religion 7

These are but a couple examples of principles regarding the proper treatment of sacred objects and places that help guide archaeologists in the field. Note, however, that, in both cases, these guidelines were set out by descendants of those past cultures. At issue, then, is how archaeologists can be guided when there are no descendants to set down rules of behavior? Archaeologists must adhere to their own internal ethics while still striving to present, in objective fashion, the results of our discoveries to the public. It is an imperfect solution to the problem of appropriate behavioral codes and the sacred past but the best available, nonetheless. Its success depends on the professionalism of the archaeologist and the appropriateness of the display of the retrieved material culture (i.e., in a museum or other public venue). If both of these factors are in good stead, then the beauty of that ancient culture and its beliefs will themselves rekindle the appropriate behavior in everyone who sees them. Cultures and Their Beliefs in Worldwide Context Which cultures should be explored in a book on the archaeology of religion? Ideally, all of them, but of course, this is an impossible task. Inevitably, someone’s favorite ancient society will be absent from the coming chapters. In this second edition, the author painfully decided that several cultures included in the first edition would not be retained. Happily, these spaces were not left blank, and new discussions, including on Paleoamerica and ancient China, were added. Certain discussions were a must, given their popularity—the Egyptians, the Aztecs—and thus, these were updated in this second edition, as were all of the other chapters that migrated from the original book. This volume seeks to go beyond simply presenting a shopping list of past cultures and their religions, interesting though that may be, and examine what religions can tell us about human culture as a whole. In general, three interpretive frameworks will be employed, to greater or lesser extent, as approaches for understanding the cultures and belief systems explored throughout the book. These theoretical frameworks offer some methods for interpreting past— and p­ resent—religions as lenses on the prism of belief systems and how they ­function in society. Religion Reflects Culture

The first, and perhaps the most often evident, is the model that dictates the reflective nature between religion and culture. The overall structure of a society as well as its most crucial institutions, values, and ideals can often be clearly observed in its belief system—in effect, mirroring the culture. This reflective nature includes the interrelationship between religion and environment. A hunter-gatherer society that is essentially egalitarian is likely to have an animistic religion featuring

8  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

spirits of relatively equal power. Religious practitioners in such a culture will not hold exalted positions. On the other hand, societies that are socially ranked tend to feature religions that have ranked spirits (possibly ancestral) or gods and may also believe in a high or supreme deity at the helm of the supernatural coterie (Swanson 1969). Such cultures may have full-time religious practitioners who occupy a special position in the society and who are essential to the successful completion of public rituals. A culture’s economy can also be found as a critical component in the belief system. For instance, the Inuit cultures of the arctic circle believe that all animals have souls (see Chapter 5). Much of Inuit religion involves elaborate rituals and taboos embedded in the hunting process so that animal spirits do not become angry and cause living animals to evade Inuit hunters (Pelly 2001). We are not, therefore, surprised when earth fertility is a focus in a culture that depends on cultivation and the appeasement of war gods crucial to a frequently warring society. Religion and environment may also serve as the basis for societal stability as well. For instance, the Wape of New Guinea, traditionally egalitarian, believe that lineage ancestors inhabit and protect certain areas of the forest; only descendants of that lineage can hunt successfully in that region. In this way, the Wape ensure that all hunters have “protected” hunting grounds to provide for their families, thereby ensuring egalitarianism (Mitchell 1987). Other cultures were more concerned with using religion to manipulate and control not only the environment but also the humans in it. Competitive individuals or groups seek an “edge” by which they may rise to greater levels of power than their rivals. Often, that edge is control of important resources found in the surrounding environment. Hayden (2003) and others suggest that the building of large stone tombs, a practice that emerged in the Bronze Age of Western Europe, was, in large part, an attempt to control a landscape that was becoming increasingly important to these early farming societies. Cultures that live in a difficult and dangerous environment often take great steps to ensure supernatural support. For instance, on Easter Island, massive statues called Moai, dedicated to the ancestors, were erected by the Polynesian colonists (Figure 1.2). The effort to create and erect these statues was enormous, showing colonists’ devotion to their ancestors. However, human habitation in a closed (island) environment led to food shortages and internal conflict. Anger toward ancestors caused inhabitants to topple the Moai after their failure to protect their descendants. That culture and religion are reflective of one another is an important concept in the archaeology of religion, since archaeological endeavors often reveal a great deal about a culture’s social, economic, and political structure; an understanding that “religion reflects culture” can serve as a crucial interpretive tool in revealing that culture’s belief system.

Introducing the Archaeology of Religion 9

Figure 1.2 Photo of an Easter Island moai “ancestor” statue (Mc vc, 2019, CC BY-SA 4.0). Religion and Social Control

A second interpretive framework sees a more proactive use of religion as a powerful method to control society. Religion can be used to coerce believers into behaviors and actions that are contrary to what is perceived as normalcy, such as the performance of tremendous labor without recompense, the curtailing of previously practiced social freedoms, or giving up one’s life to aid religion or society.

10  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

Figure 1.3 Photo of the Great Wall of China (Severin.Stalder, 2013, CC BY-SA 3.0).

This becomes particularly prevalent in more complex societies when ruling elites seek to keep a tight rein on their peoples; however, such methods crop up in other societal structures as well. One very successful method to achieve social control through religion is for rulers to declare themselves divine. The archaeological record shows us many such empires with deified kings—or rulers who portrayed themselves as intricately interwoven with the culture’s cosmology. One short-lived example of this was the first Qin Dynasty ruler in China (221–210 bce), who came to rule during a time of bloodshed and chaos. The first Qin emperor vowed to restore harmony with the cosmos, essentially balancing the “ying” and “yang,” which had been disturbed (Yates 2001). The people’s belief in this gave the Qin emperor tremendous power over them. During his short reign, he was able to compel them to carry out monumental building projects, including the completion of the “Great Wall” of China (Figure 1.3) and his mausoleum, in which as many as 7,000 terracotta soldiers, along with horses, chariots, and other military equipment, were entombed with him (see Chapter 14). The archaeologist who finds a blurring of the lines between the supernatural world and the earthly ruler, combined with monumental works or other evidence of controlled labor, would do well to consider the possibility of religion as a powerful tool of the ruling elite. Religion as a Tool for Change

A third approach examines the role religion can play as a method to rebel against oppressive regimes and foreign or hostile powers as well as act as a mode to revitalize a culture in crisis.

Introducing the Archaeology of Religion 11

Anthropologists have found that the development of new or restructured religious systems are often the response to what is perceived to be overwhelming pressure on the culture; such pressures include acculturative forced change, oppressive laws, and the restriction of normal freedoms. These movements are, in part, a rebellion against that pressure and also are often an attempt to reinvigorate a culture and help ensure its survival. Sometimes, such religions are called cults, a term generally referring to religious movements that run contrary to the ideologies of normal religious traditions. However, the term “cult” has become very problematic in recent decades because it has been applied to highly publicized and extremely aberrant religious movements that employ mind control and illegal activities; examples of these modern “cults” include “The Heaven’s Gate” cult in San Diego and the “Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple” apocalypse at Jonestown, in which people took their own lives or the lives of others. However, anthropology continues to understand the concept of “cult” as a description of a reactionary belief in response to external stimuli. An example of what might be termed “religious rebellion” are the various New Age religions that emerged in the 1970s. They generally rejected the rigid practices of organized religion and focused, instead, on more loosely defined religious concepts such as spirituality, the environment, or the feminine principle. Such movements were primarily a result of reaction against the “establishment” in the 1960s by North Americans and Europeans (Puttick 1997; Brown 2000). Young adults rejected an establishment that had initiated decades of war (WWII, followed by the Korean War and then war in Vietnam); instead, they sought a peaceful, harmonic, and unified society. Added to this was the feminist movement, in which women rebelled against all aspects perceived as patriarchal, including organized religion. Out of this social rebellion emerged numerous new religious movements termed “New Age” religions; the overarching conviction within these belief systems is that a new and better world will emerge if enough believers seek equality, spirituality, and personal growth (Morris 2006). Past and present-day cultures have also turned to religious movements to revitalize their culture when its very survival is in question. A well-known revitalization movement is the nineteenth-century Native American “Ghost Dance,” developed by a Paiute named Wovoka (Kehoe 1989). Wovoka led people in this circle dance, including a return to traditional ways in the face of colonialism (Figure  1.4). This would lead to an end of colonial rule in Wovoka’s prophecy. These types of movements feature a pathway to erase the source of stress and free the society to return to its traditional ways; the forces of oppression or external stress will be eradicated and the culture will return to a “golden age” of customs designed by cultural members alone. There is every reason to suspect that some of the world’s past religions began for the very types of reasons outlined here: In rebellion to internal or external societal stresses or to revitalize an endangered cultural entity. There are countless other models that may be employed to understand religions past and present, many of which are found in the next chapter. The three

12  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

Figure 1.4 Mid-nineteenth-century photo of an Arapaho Ghost Dance (National Archives and Records Administration, public domain).

interpretive frameworks outlined here are broad in their scope and thus allow us to see how deeply intertwined religion is in virtually every aspect of the human experience on earth. The Book’s Organization The chapter immediately following this one lays out an anthropological history of the study of religion. Archaeologists cannot hope to interpret past belief systems without the aid of their sociocultural compatriots who have studied it in its living form. It also demonstrates how archaeologists have used the theories generated by these sociocultural anthropologists to build interpretive frameworks for the archaeological past. The innovative thinking of these researchers is not only fascinating but it is at the heart of what makes a book such as this one possible. A final chapter in the book’s first section offers an exploration of shamanism and the shaman, likely to be the oldest type of religious practitioner in human history. The second section of the book focuses on the emergence of religion in human culture. Ritual behaviors in the Neanderthal world are explored, followed by the earliest inhabitation of the Americas and exploration of hunter-gatherer religion. The section concludes with an overview of rock art in both Africa and Australia. The following four sections are organized according first to a geographical and then a chronological theme. In some cases, the presentation of material in later chapters builds on what was offered in those earlier in the same section (such as Chapters 16, 17, and 18 on the ancient Levant), while others, such as

Introducing the Archaeology of Religion 13

Chapters 11 and 12 on the Aztecs and Inca, describe contemporary but largely unrelated cultures. In many of these chapters, artistic renderings of ancient rituals and ceremonies bring the archaeological data to life, which is, after all, our ultimate goal as archaeologists. The goal of this book is to educate, of course, but also to inspire the reader to learn more about the ancient world that came before. With that knowledge comes respect and understanding for the glorious variety of human culture both past and present.

Chapter 2

Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past

One important step in any scholarly endeavor is to review past work that led to the present state of the topic. This chapter begins with perhaps the single most difficult feat in the entire book: The definition of “religion.” Defining Religion The desire to define religion anthropologically essentially began with the origins of the discipline itself. Perhaps the best-known definition of religion comes from a contemporary anthropologist, Clifford Geertz (1926–2006), who suggested that religion is (1973: 90): (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. This interpretation recognizes the symbolic role of religion in that myths, rituals, and supernatural beings are representative of crucial aspects of social, economic, and even political behaviors within a culture. Raymond Firth (1996: 11), based on a lifetime of research on the subject, suggests [religion] fits the highly complex world of human imagining, and serves an array of human purposes not always consciously realized by people themselves. It corresponds in figurative and symbolic language to an attempt to meet basic human problems involved in mental and physical anxiety and pain, the certainty of death, the uncertainties of life in the complicated relations with other human beings. In this, we can recognize some of the well-known explanations for the existence of religion—i.e., as relief to anxiety and uncertainty, as social bonding device, and as psychological response to external stimuli. A  slightly different tack is DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-3

Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past 15

taken by Paul Boyer who suggests that humans have religion because it is how our brains are hardwired (2001: 2): The explanation for religious beliefs and behaviors is to be found in the way all human minds work. I really mean all human minds, not just the minds of religious people or of some of them. I am talking about human minds, because what matters here are properties of minds that are found in all members of our species with normal brains. Roy Rappaport (1999) also suggests that religion “grew up” with humans and that language allowed humans to escape from the confines of here and now and explore the unseeable, the imagined; this ability sowed the seeds of religious thought and action. Rappaport believes that the performance of ritual stands at the heart of human religion and is the carrier and impetus of emotion, unquestioning belief, and social unity that make religion such a powerful human institution. How, then, does one define “religion”? Shamelessly drawing upon foregoing anthropologists who devoted their scholarly careers to the understanding of religion, a brief definition can be offered here: Religion is a system of beliefs that include supernatural beings and answers to mysterious or unexplainable phenomena; it is a set of practices and associated trappings that allow believers to not only engage the supernatural world but also demonstrate their devotion and faith in it. It is intricately intertwined with every aspect of culture that shapes social structure while it also in turn is shaped by it. This definition may seem suspiciously broad, but it is meant to serve the archaeological discipline more specifically. For instance, the “associated trappings” comprise the material remains archaeologists must rely upon to interpret past cultures. These trappings—and what they represent—are indicative of emotion, devotion, conviction, and faith on the part of the believers who created them. The imprint of emotions and feelings may very well have carried down through generations in the way such objects were handled, stored, or left in place. Finally—and perhaps most importantly—the fact that archaeologists cannot separate religion from the rest of the culture must be kept at the forefront of our interpretive attempts. Religion in the past and today permeates every aspect of how humans construct their social institutions, from art to marriage to politics. Anthropological Theories and the Origins of Religion The mid-nineteenth century was a time of Western imperialism with a deluge of new societies and cultural puzzles revealed to European and North American intellectual circles. Herein lies the birth of the anthropological discipline

16  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

and the desire to explain cultural diversity. Though early theories were shaped by the ethnocentric thinking of the time, skewed by interpretations based on a sliding scale of the value of cultural types, nineteenth century scholars made important contributions to the understanding of cultural structure and diversity. Many of these breakthroughs form the underpinnings of the anthropological discipline today. Evolutionary Approaches to Explaining Religion

Charles Darwin and his study of evolution had an impact on how early anthropologists sought to explain the origin and ubiquity of religious belief systems. Edward B. Tylor (1832–1917) was a professor of anthropology at Oxford, and Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881) studied Iroquois ritual in New York state. Tylor and Morgan are described as “classical cultural evolutionists” who created a sliding scale of human cultural structure (Tylor 1871; Morgan 1877), reasoning that, in the past, all cultures were deeply “primitive,” and over time, many evolved into more sophisticated social systems. One school of thought, known as “Unilinear Evolutionism,” viewed cultural structures and institutions as progressing from “savagery” to “civilized,” passing through stages of “barbarism” along the way. Tylor was particularly interested in magico-religious belief systems and suggested that cultures took a rational approach to explaining the unexplainable, through the belief that the spiritual energy from humans and animals was responsible for dreams, visions, and hallucinations and all phenomena that made up the natural world. Tylor labeled this belief system animism, from the Latin for “soul.” Following on the heels of Tylor and Morgan was Sir James Frazer (1854– 1951), author of the 12-volume set The Golden Bough (1890–1915; a condensed version appeared in 1922). Frazer, a unilinear evolutionist, was taken with the idea of animism; in The Golden Bough, he advanced the theory that much of early religion relied on a belief in magic prior to animistic systems. Frazer advanced the term sympathetic magic, which is divided into two types: Imitative and contagious. The imitative “Law of Sympathy” is based on the notion that like produces like: Water ritually sprinkled on the ground will induce rain. Contagious magic dictates that, once something is part of an entity, it remains spiritually connected even when irrevocably separated: A lock of hair, inserted into a doll, enables someone to carry out actions on the doll and expect corresponding reactions in the human from whom the hair was taken. Frazer suggests that, when magic seemed not to work, people turned to animistic religion. Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), a French sociologist, was a contemporary of Tylor, but his approach to the interpretation of religion was quite different. Durkheim (1915) put forth the idea that a culture’s religion is the manifestation of social action and thought. One of the core principles of Durkheim’s interpretation is that “religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices . . . which unite

Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past 17

into one single moral community” (Durkheim 1915: 62). Religion, therefore, at its origin and in its continuance, serves as the interconnective tissue to continually reinforce basic societal norms and mores within the social framework. Durkheim argued that cultures divide the world into categories of sacred and profane; what might be placed in the two categories varies across cultures, explaining diversity in religious beliefs. Ordinary, everyday things are profane, requiring no special treatment or thought. Sacred things are special and represent important aspects of social consciousness; they are either forbidden or worshipped, and in all cases, inspire deep emotion and awe. As individuals internalize the categories and take part in rituals and behaviors celebrating the sacred, the community becomes more tightly bound in a solidarity of belief and action. Totems fall into the “sacred” category. Durkheim felt that totemism, a system in which ancestral spirits are symbolically represented by animate or inanimate objects (such as a bear, or a mountain), was illustrative not only of original religions but also of his sacred and profane divisions and their power to unite a community. All religions serve to unite communities and provide a method to reinforce basic principles, mores, values—in essence, the social consciousness of the culture. New Views in the Twentieth Century

It wasn’t long before nineteenth-century evolutionary models for cultural diversity were discounted as too simplistic and also insensitive, spurring new and more enlightened directions of exploration and thought. The early twentieth century saw the rise of influential thinkers whose research and theories literally shaped the outlines of modern anthropology. Anti-Evolutionism and the Birth of Cultural Relativism

Franz Boas (1858–1942) did not subscribe to the same overarching ideas about cultural evolution as did his predecessors, rejecting Unilinear Evolutionism as haphazard, lacking in empirical evidence, and even prejudiced in its terminology. Boas conducted research in North America, becoming the first US professor of anthropology at Columbia University, where he developed an interpretive framework that has come to be known as Historical Particularism (Harris 1968). Boas (1920) asserted that each culture was unique, a product of its individual history, and that one must study each culture, personally and intensively; he argued that “armchair anthropology” must be abandoned for dedicated fieldwork and that it was senseless to judge cultures that were innately unique and thus incomparable. This point of view has become a main tenet of anthropology and is invoked in the concept of cultural relativism. By insisting on culturally relative, non-ethnocentric views of culture and by instilling the necessity of ethnographic fieldwork, Boas almost single-handedly re-oriented the field of anthropology into a structure we recognize today as “modern” anthropology.

18  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion Religion, Functionalism, and Societal Needs

Several European scholars, including Bronislaw Malinowski (1884–1942), were also seeking non-evolutionary frameworks to explain cultural diversity. Like Boas, Malinowski saw the efficacy of fieldwork, spending nearly 4 years in the Trobriand Islands in Melanesia to conduct his studies (Malinowski 1922). Malinowski’s main theoretical model, known as Functionalism, advocates that cultural institutions such as “marriage” or “religion” are totally integrated; a single institution cannot be understood in isolation but only in the context of the entire cultural structure. Furthermore, institutions are configured to meet societal needs such as safety, reproduction, nutrition, education, laws and values, and other basic aspects of human behaviors. Malinowski felt he had unlocked the mystery of cultural diversity. Regarding religion, Malinowski (1925) insisted that non-literate cultures were pragmatic, even scientific, in their approach to religion. For Malinowski, religion and the rituals, myths, and events associated with it were ordered and structured in ways that allowed individuals within the society to live productive and relatively fearless lives. For instance, totemism, or ritual performance, united believers into an interconnected web of beliefs that gave them solace and feelings of safety and community. Malinowski asserted that magic took over where a culture’s technical or natural understanding of the world ended. When facing a stormy sea, Malinowski observed Trobriand fishermen performing rites/incantations (magic) to ensure their safety; the magic functioned to serve their needs of safety and comfort. Several decades later, Roy Rappaport (1968) employed a functionalist interpretation to understand religion and ritual among the Tesmbaga of New Guinea but added an ecological dimension to his model. He suggested that Tsembaga ritual is derived from societal needs and ecological balancing. Pigs, a symbol of wealth and status in Tsembaga culture, are not casually slaughtered and eaten but are featured at ritual feasts. In one case, Rappaport observed the slaughter of well over 100 pigs, leaving only 60 alive (Rappoport 1967). Rappaport argued that the timing of the feasts corresponded with ecological and social needs. First, ritual feasts occurred when the pig herd had nearly reached unmanageable size. Second, such feasts happened after the stress of warfare had created a need for protein and other nutrients supplied by meat, an otherwise rare food item in the Tsembaga diet, adding an ecological component to a functionalist-based interpretation of religion. The Structure of Culture and Religion

The final break from cultural evolutionism was accomplished by the introduction of yet another theoretical approach known as structuralism, offered by Claude Lévi-Strauss (1966, 1969). Structuralism seeks to identify the organization and

Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past 19

meaning of the cultural institutions underlying any society. Once identified, the overarching and confusing differentiations across cultures can be better understood, allowing more productively comparative analysis. Lévi-Strauss believed that religion consisted of binary opposites such as life and death, raw and cooked, featuring a society’s structural make-up, including beliefs, values, and customs, which could be most clearly identified in its myths. Creation myths, for instance, though varied across cultures, relate the same underlying human concerns: Where did we come from, how did our environment emerge, what happens when we die, and so on. As these myths are passed on from one generation to the next, so is the underlying and unconscious societal structure that maintains and reinforces cultural integrity. Symbolism and Cultural Materialism

E. E. Evans-Pritchard began his career examining culture, witchcraft, and magic as a structuralist-functionalist (1937, 1940) but radically changed his approach in the 1950s. In two later publications on religion (1956, 1965), Evans-Pritchard argued that anthropologists must delve deeply into the symbolic meaning represented by every element within a religion and then seek a method to translate this effectively back to the anthropologist’s own culture, launching a symbolic anthropological approach employed by many anthropologists today. Mary Douglas’ work (1966, 1973) is closely associated with symbolic anthropology as an interpretive approach. Like her mentor Evans-Pritchard, she argued that religion and ritual consist of symbolically meaningful components that represent a culture’s most basic values and worldview. Douglas studied the existence of taboos, theorizing that all cultures harbored notions of ritual purity and ritual contamination, or pollution. By unraveling the symbolic meaning underlying pure/impure classifications, one could extrapolate the culture’s structure and worldview. Victor Turner also made important contributions to the symbolic anthropology approach. For Turner, symbols are both cognitive and emotional responses— “units of meaning” representative of the entire cultural structure. Members of a culture understand the “forest of symbols” and their range of meanings (1967), which unites them into a community of believers. Turner also made important contributions to the anthropological understanding of ritual rites of passage (1969), suggesting that rite of passage participants are collectively marginalized from their society during an initial liminal stage. Those who endure the ritual process together emerge from their liminal status to achieve a lifetime bond of unity that Turner calls communitas. Marvin Harris (1974, 1977) offered an alternative to symbolic anthropology in an interpretive model known as Cultural Materialism. In this approach, Harris disavows the notion of otherworldly symbolic meanings to things, places, or concepts considered sacred in a culture. In a somewhat Marxist approach,

20  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

Harris asserts that cultures organize behavior, religious and otherwise, to support these underlying infrastructures, which, in turn, shape the overarching sociopolitical economy, and finally, the overall cultural institutions. For instance, Harris explains the sacred nature of cows in Hinduism as a response to the increasing importance of draft animals in agriculture; resisting the consumption of an important animal soon became a ritual taboo. In this way, religion is simply a response to the material conditions existing in that culture’s environmental sphere. Anthropological Theory and the Study of Religion

There are, of course, dozens of other anthropologists who have offered various models for the interpretation of religion and ritual. Some of these will be introduced in the next section, and some of those discussed earlier will reappear there. A fairly comprehensive understanding of the various anthropological approaches used to interpret religion is a crucial underpinning to any archaeological approach that seeks to illuminate a past culture’s religious belief system. Failing to understand how the anthropological discipline interprets living religions is a prelude to interpretive mistakes in understanding those in ancient times. The Archaeology of Religion The combination of archaeology and religion is nothing new. Archaeologists have long recognized that how a society treated their dead provided important underpinnings to the study of religion (e.g., O’Shea 1984; Tainter 1978; Ucko 1969). However, modern pursuits in what is now the archaeology of religion would not have been possible without the advent of “new archaeology” in the 1960s, proposed by Lewis Binford (1962, 1965; Binford and Binford 1968), among others (Willey and Phillips 1958), and now generally called processual archaeology. This approach freed archaeologists from the strict construction of typologies (the classification of the physical traits of artifacts and features and assignment to specific cultures) to ask broader questions about the meaning of material culture and what it might indicate about past behaviors. Instead of simply identifying “what cultures made” through archaeological typologies, processualists asked “why” did they make it (that way, or even at all)—and even “what did it mean” to those who made it. To answer such questions, archaeologists turned to living cultures, ushering in the use of anthropological archaeology to understand the past. Although the subdiscipline of ethnoarchaeology, studying living cultures to understand archaeological materials, had been practiced for decades, it took on new importance with the introduction of processual archaeology (Hodder 1982; Kramer 1979). However, ethnoarchaeological methodology as a tool to interpret ancient belief systems has substantial limitations given that the meaning of objects and concepts can change from one generation to the next. This may be

Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past 21

somewhat mitigated by use of the “direct historical approach,” when members of a living culture provide information on cultural materials made by their ancestors, but caution must still be exercised due to the dynamic nature of cultural structure. By the 1980s, the groundwork for the field now known as the archaeology of religion had been laid. The processualist and ethnoarchaeological approaches allowed archaeologists to delve into not just what ancient peoples did (i.e., by examining material culture) but also what they thought when they did it. This approach, termed cognitive archaeology, advises archaeologists that “the study of all those aspects of ancient culture . . . are the product of the human mind” (Flannery and Marcus 1993: 264). This includes cosmology, religion, ideology, iconography, and any other product of human intellect and symbolic beliefs. The most successful cognitive archaeology takes place when there is a wealth of information already available about the culture; when little is yet understood, the archaeologist must proceed very cautiously to avoid misinterpretation and unintended misdirection (Henley et al. 2019). Nonetheless, Colin Renfrew (1994) insists that the archaeologist must recognize the mystery, power, and experience embodied in religious belief systems and that the cognitive map of how to navigate mores, values, and ideals is embedded in that system. Cognitive methods allow the archaeologist to step beyond the object, to attempt to reattach the emotion, belief, and action associated with what are otherwise static material remains. Applied with caution, cognitive archaeology is one important key to the successful interpretation of past religions. The Archaeology of Religion Begins

The theoretical strides of the later twentieth century allowed archaeologists in the early twenty-first century to seriously undertake the task of not only investigating the religions of past cultures but writing about how to do so, elevating the “archaeology of religion” to a subdiscipline within the larger archaeological field (e.g., Edwards 2005; Fogelin 2008; Insoll 2004; Whitley 2008). With these interpretive techniques in place, entire realms of archaeological research became far more fruitful, going beyond finding and identifying ritual items and structures within archaeological sites, extending beyond to areas such as rock art interpretation, discussed in more detail in Chapters 5–7, and to the investigation into natural sacred places. Sacred places on the landscape have become important targets of study in the archaeology of religion. Since each sacred space and the structures built upon it is a product of the culture that revered it, the archaeologist must begin asking questions not about the space but rather the culture that created it (Steadman 2005). What did that sacred location mean to participants in activities there? Did it mark a boundary zone between cosmological zones, serve as a place of purification or sacrifice, or the renewal of devotion (Renfrew 1994)? Was it open to the

22  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

entire community, particular social or kin groups, or just to elites? The important questions to ask are dictated by what the archaeologist already knows about the culture in question and its belief system. Applying Method and Theory: The Components of Religion

The discussion above profiled anthropological and archaeological theories designed to interpret religious belief systems. Here, the various components that constitute religions are presented. Cosmology and Worldview

Cosmology is a word that describes the less tangible elements of a belief system, including the creation of a culture’s universe and all it comprises. Another phrase with a similarly intangible meaning is “religious worldview.” Worldview refers to a culture’s perception of reality: How do people and society fit into the workings of the world and how, in fact, does the world work? Some cultures have a naturalistic worldview in that humans exist as one part of a vastly complicated natural system. Alternatively, the Western worldview would instead be described as perhaps “scientific” in that physical and logical laws are at the basis of how the world works; if these laws can be understood and mastered, then the world can be controlled, and humans are in a unique position to sit at the helm of the controls. A culture’s cosmology refers to its religious worldview, including how the supernatural world functions and identifies the human’s role within it. A culture’s cosmology is expressed in myths and rituals, and it is through these that researchers grasp a culture’s perception of the supernatural and natural world. Myth and the Archaeological Record

Myths are the sacred stories that explain the basis of a culture’s belief system. Mythologies contain creation stories, describe what happens after death, reveal the origins of supernatural beings, and explain all elements necessary for understanding the universe. An archaeologist must shed ethnocentrism to properly understand an ancient mythology, as these sacred stories were believed by the ancient culture to describe true events. Myths also harbor important information about the culture. Past events often become embedded in mythical stories, giving researchers important clues to cultural history and offering insight into elements that may have shaped the culture’s worldview. For instance, ancient Middle Eastern mythological stories tell of a great flood that devastated humankind. In fact, the widespread presence of flood myths in Western Asian mythologies has led scientists to examine the earth for clues to just such an event. Beyond simply learning the meaning of myths, researchers must seek to understand their role within the society. Durkheim and Malinowski took a

Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past 23

functional approach, arguing that myths maintain societal structure by reminding believers of the crucial codes of behavior, value system, and morality that shapes the culture as a whole. Structuralists like Lévi-Strauss asserted that myths reveal the underlying structural make-up of the society, such as defining oppositional elements. For instance, a myth that portrays a great deal of tension between male and female supernatural beings is indicative of the same oppositional structure in the culture. Other scholars focus more on the symbolism contained within sacred stories. For instance, in Greek mythology, Demeter’s daughter, Kore, consumes pomegranate seeds in the underworld, preventing a permanent return to the upper world. In spring and summer, Kore is with her mother in the upper world and descends to the underworld in fall and winter, symbolizing the birth and growth—and dormancy—of the agricultural cycle. Retrieving myths archaeologically is quite challenging, especially if the culture was pre- or non-literate and the cosmology was transmitted orally from one generation to the next. At this point, the archaeologist might well flap her hands in frustration and decide the mythology is beyond reach. However, the cosmology and the myths that reveal it were part and parcel of the past culture’s everyday life and may very well be represented on both religious and everyday items. Naturally, special locations such as rock paintings and carvings would require particular attention; suspecting that a culture’s myth is embedded in an image would be a logical inference. It would be remiss, however, to designate the rock or wall paintings as “religious” and ignore as “simply decoration” the small story told on the shoulder of a ceramic pot. The geometric figures carved on the handle of an adze may be symbolic representations of important elements in the creation myth; the small bone carving of an animal could be a miniature of the sacred animal spirit rather than a child’s toy. Clues could abound in the mundane, there for the taking if the right interpretive framework is applied. The danger here, of course, is seeing representations of myth in things that are, indeed, simply everyday tools without an ounce of religiosity associated with them. Here, the holistic approach is crucial; the archaeologist must examine the context of all the discoveries and make well-considered, evidence-based interpretations about what objects and places might reveal about a culture’s sacred stories. Ritual and the Archaeological Record

A ritual refers to repetitive and routinized behavior. Children in a United States elementary school who stand, place hands over hearts, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning are performing a non-religious ritual. Rituals are repetitive in that the process of events are the same, and usually, there are no surprises in store. All the children know what they are supposed to do and say and roughly when it is supposed to happen. Rituals are closely tied with the culture’s mythology and are often structured according to mythological components. Performers in the ritual may even act out

24  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

the story contained in a myth. Rituals may be frequent or occur only at special times; they may be public, private, led by an official, performed individually, elaborate, or simple. If rituals are frequent and regularized, such as the proscription that Muslims must pray five times a day at set intervals, they might be easier to recognize in the archaeological record because such frequent activities might require permanent material culture dedicated to them. Other rituals are more “situational” in that they occur due to a crisis or unexpected event (Stein and Stein 2005). A  series of protective rituals performed when a culture is under attack and must deploy warriors would be a good example of situational rites. A third category of rituals are those that are infrequent but still happen at particular times, perhaps according to an annual cycle. A harvest festival, the Christian celebration of Christmas, or the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca are good examples of such “periodic” rituals (Stein and Stein 2005). Because such rituals tend to be rather extensive, they, too, might be detectable in the archaeological record. In addition to identifying the frequency of rituals, determining the reason for them is perhaps of even greater importance. Some rituals are meant to acknowledge a supernatural being, ensuring continued good will. Other rituals are directly related to specific tasks such as food acquisition. These might be nature rituals performed to keep the natural world functioning properly or to fix a problem such as drought, pestilence, or another problem. Rituals may be meant to ensure a successful hunt, to bring about a fertile crop cycle, or keep a herd healthy and safe from harm. Another category of rituals is aimed more at humans and can be deemed “protective” in nature (Stein and Stein 2005). These would take place before dangerous activities, to protect children from evil, or protect a society that fears an external threat such as attack. Healing rituals constitute another category that is quite commonly found. A final, specific type of ritual is rites of passage. Rites of passage rituals frequently stand at the intersection between the life stages of an individual or group. Passing “though” the rite of passage advances the participant into the next life stage. Rites of passage can be elaborate and may last hours, days, months, and even years; during this time, participants are symbolically removed from society, in a “liminal” state as described earlier. Participants complete the rite of passage feeling newly born into their society, having formed more tightly knit ties with their age group (“communitas,” see foregoing) who endured the experience with them. Ritual practices are more likely to leave behind material culture (e.g., altars, offering bowls, burned animal bones, and so forth) than the oral transmission of mythologies. However, the old cliché in archaeology—“if you can’t ­identify the artifact, it must have been a ritual item”—is both a truism and a trap. When dealing with artifacts, there is virtue in suspecting something unusual may have had religious/ritual uses. In part, this is because archaeologists who are extremely well-versed in material culture will recognize when an object may be non-utilitarian, and thus, possibly non-secular. However, it is too easy to fall into the trap of automatic assignment to a “ritual” category and thus fail to pursue other

Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past 25

interpretations. Keeping an open mind to all possibilities of meaning is the best advice for unusual artifacts. It might be somewhat easier to identify locales where ritual activity took place, especially if there is some knowledge of what type of rituals were normally carried out in the culture (Figure  2.1). Regular and frequent rituals and major annual events will be more easily detected than “crisis” rituals that come up infrequently. Practices involving fire, water, animals, and other elements or materials that require built structures (such as altars, basins for water, see examples in Figure 2.1) or leave remains such as burnt animal bones are obviously very useful in advancing the archaeologist’s understanding of ritual behavior (Renfrew 1994). Areas of a settlement set aside for practices that seem other than domestic might have served ritual purposes. Clues to activities lie in features and artifacts associated with such an area, with interpretation aided by the archaeologist’s deepseated knowledge about the culture’s behavioral patterns (Whitley 2008).

Figure 2.1 A rtistic rendering of a ritual. Note presence of stone basin, ritual vessels, and stone platform for table (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

26  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion Supernatural Beings and the Archaeological Record

Understanding the types of supernatural beings that occur in religions and which beings are most common in a given culture is part of any attempt to study religion. Understanding the types of specialists most likely to interact with the supernatural world is also crucial. There are several types of supernatural beings, the most common being: Spirits, ghosts, and deities (gods and goddesses). Classifying these supernatural beings includes determining whether they generally have human or non-human origins, what roles they play in a society, and which types are likely to be present in cultures of varying social, economic, and political complexity. In most animistic belief systems, spirits, with the exception of ancestor spirits, had non-human origins that either pre-dated or were part of the creation of the world and sometimes had a hand in the creation of humans. Animistic spirits generally inhabit the same world as humans but on a different plane, largely invisible to the humans around them. Rituals and codes of behavior encourage the spirits to behave favorably toward humans. Hunter-gathering cultures are quite likely to have this type of animistic belief system, and such cosmologies can also be found in cultures practicing herding and small-scale cultivation economies. Spirits may also be more individualized, with specific names, and they may inhabit particular places considered “sacred.” Spirits are generally considered to be beneficial to humans, though it is unwise to anger the spirits by mistreating them or their domains. A category of beings sometimes referred to as tricksters are found in many different cultures. Tricksters are overtly hostile to humans, although, in some cases, they can be cajoled into being helpful. Tricksters include beings such as leprechauns in Ireland, the Middle Eastern jinn, Loki in Norse mythology, or the coyote of some Native American belief systems. The function of trickster spirits/ deities is to cause problems for the unsuspecting human, particularly one who is misbehaving in some fashion. Tricksters are particularly useful in encouraging the correct behavior in children and can also be blamed for misfortune when it appears undeserved. Ancestor spirits were once human and are closely associated with the familial unit from which they came. Ancestor spirits inhabit the homes or lands of their lineage and generally serve to guard and protect the family and its holdings. Shrines to the ancestors are built either in the home or other sacred locations where prayers, offerings, and rituals can be performed to keep the relationship strong and healthy. Ancestor veneration is a wide-spread phenomenon, but it is most often found in societies with a strong lineage descent system, with inheritance rights involving lands, material property, and leadership roles. Ghosts, another category of supernatural beings, are uniformly thought to have had human origins and, unlike ancestor spirits, do not usually have good intentions toward humans. Ghosts can cause a host of problems for the families

Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past 27

from which they came, resulting in ghost fear practices that entail behaviors designed to minimize the impact the recently deceased might have on the living. An example of this is the Navajo practice of closing up a hogan (house) in which someone has died. All the deceased’s belongs are left there and no one enters the hogan in order to avoid infection from ghost sickness. Deities, like spirits, are usually viewed as having had non-human origins, although this is not always the case. Some humans become deified, for instance, through action by the deities or the automatic deification of rulers. Unlike spirits, deities usually reside separately from humans, not among them. They may inhabit an upper or underworld, a distant location such as Mt. Olympus in the ancient Greek cosmology, or otherwise carry out their lives separate from humans. Deities are usually fairly individualized personalities with names, characteristics, and agendas. Mythologies tell of their lives and how they interact with one another and with their human charges. Deities are often anthropomorphic in that they resemble humans and have the same type of emotional responses as do the people in their culture. If the belief system has multiple deities, it is polytheistic, with a pantheon of gods and goddesses. In such cases, there will usually be a hierarchy within the pantheon, with a supreme deity or a group at the top and other beings of descending importance, each responsible for some aspect of human existence (i.e., creation, fire, love, war, and so on). Several major present-day religions, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, are considered monotheistic in that they recognize only one supreme deity, but monotheism is less common than polytheistic systems. Religions that feature deities tend to be associated with societies that have more complex sociopolitical and economic systems such as chiefdoms and states. Such cultures may also recognize a collection of spirit beings, but in most instances, they will be considered inferior in power and importance to their godly counterparts. It is sometimes difficult to recognize evidence of supernatural beings in the archaeological record. When does an ivory carving of a cow represent the “Bull God” and when is it a child’s toy? The context of such figurines may be key when combined with what else is known about the culture. Did cattle seem important? Were they hunted, used as crucial work animals, prevalent in the faunal record? Was the ivory carving found in what appears to be a normal household area or a location that has been designated as “specialized”? One must also consider that its domestic location may not indicate its non-religious use, but rather, its importance as a household spirit or deity. Other evidence makes it slightly easier on the archaeologist; half animal/half human representations can usually be safely deemed supernatural or associated with ritual; humans represented with special paraphernalia (i.e., an elaborate headdress, or halos) or shown larger than those around them are often indicative of divinity (or religious specialists; see later). When such pieces of evidence are located and compiled with what is known about the culture’s myth and ritual, though huge gaps may still exist, some aspects of the individual supernatural players in the cosmology begin to emerge.

28  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion Religious Specialists and the Archaeological Record

Although rituals and ceremonies can be carried out by individuals, it is common for specialists to assist believers. The specific terms to describe specialists used here stem from technical anthropological terminology, but it should be kept in mind that individual cultures employ a variety of terms to describe their religious specialists. Though Chapter 3 deals specifically with shamans as religious specialists, some general characteristics can be described here. Shamans do exist in highly complex societies, but they are usually in secondary position to priests who are the officially sanctioned practitioners. The shaman is more often the main religious specialist in hunting and gathering societies, small-scale herding and cultivating cultures, and other agrarian-based social systems. A shaman is often a part-time practitioner, performing duties when called upon, but otherwise living very much like anyone else in the culture. Shamans acquire their training either through natural ability—i.e., imbued by the spirits—or by observation and sometimes apprenticeship with another shaman. The selection process for shamans is myriad, ranging from selection at birth to inheriting the position due to one’s status or family. Shamans are sought out by their people to solve problems such as illness, ill-fortune, environmental problems, and to counteract sorcery. Although shamans perform services for large groups, they have usually been commissioned by an individual client. Shamans are generally thought of as acting in a beneficial manner to their people, and successful shamans can amass a fair amount of power and status. The religious specialists known as priests and priestesses are far more likely to be found in chiefdoms, states, empires, and other societies with complex sociopolitical and economic systems; such cultures have a formalized religious structure, often with sacred written texts and sanctified buildings used only for religious purposes. In some cultures, priests are selected much like shamans, by natural ability or by cosmological sign. In others, individuals choose the priestly profession; some cultures require that families with multiple sons or daughters send one to enter the priesthood (Stein and Stein 2005). Because they operate in more populous systems, with more duties to carry out on a daily basis, priests/ priestesses tend to be full-time specialists. They are supported either by the government, elites, by offerings from the people, or all of these. For the same reason, priests/priestesses, receive specific and regularized training in preparation for their duties through formal schooling or in more individualized apprenticeships. As priests/priestesses are full-time practitioners, they can often be identified by their dress, accoutrements, or some other indicator of their position even in nonreligious settings. This is different from a shaman, who can usually only be identified when he or she is performing a ceremony. As mentioned earlier, members of a culture are the shaman’s client, while priests/priestesses exist to carry out the wishes of the supernatural beings—the

Interpreting Religion in the Archaeological Past 29

gods and goddesses. In other words, the main role of these practitioners is to guide the behavior of the population according to the strictures set out in the sacred texts or oral tradition (mythology) of the culture. Thus, while shamans work on behalf of the needs of the people, priests/priestesses labor on behalf of the culture’s deities. The priestly job is to interpret the will of the supernatural world, to help humans perform the proper rituals and ceremonies to honor the supernatural order, and ensure that humans behave according to religious and societal codes. While it can be said that priests/priestesses play a beneficial role in society, they are always guided by the supernatural order, which can sometimes conflict with the will of the people. A final category of religious specialists are witches and sorcerers (either of which can be male or female). One of the main differences between these two practitioners is that sorcerers are identified as skilled at manipulating magic to carry out their wishes, while witches are thought to have been born with innate abilities to accomplish their goals. Both, in anthropological terms, are practitioners who do not consider the health and welfare of their culture to be their main concern. In other words, witches and sorcerers are most often intending to cause ill-fortune for individuals, groups, or even the entire society. They will carry out their work either for their own personal reasons (i.e., revenge, ill-will, personal gain) or on behalf of a client. These specialists are capable of controlling certain supernatural powers either with magic or innate abilities, and thus, are neither like priests nor shamans in this regard. Because of their dubious role in society the identity of witches and sorcerers is often, but not always, hidden. Though witchcraft and sorcery are usually used to cause problems, belief in such specialists and their crafts is fairly widespread in societies; they are commonly blamed for illness or other misfortune. Shamans might be employed to search out the witch—or the spell—and then effect a healing ceremony to bring about a cure. There are many anthropological explanations for the common presence of beliefs in witchcraft and sorcery, but one aspect is clear. Fear of angering a witch or sorcerer—or someone who has access to one—serves to keep improper behavior to a minimum. Individuals do not wish to risk the wrath of a witch or sorcerer and so do not attempt to carry out behaviors that are contrary to societal norms; in this way, witchcraft and sorcery act as social controls for behavior. One clarification regarding the term “witch” is necessary here, and that is in regard to the present-day religion known as Wicca. Wiccan practitioners generally refer to themselves as “witches” and, though they consider part of their ritual to include “magic,” they do not conform to the anthropological definition of witch or sorcerer described earlier. The Wiccan religion is one that has a particular focus on nature and sees its roots in pre-Christian European practices that recognized the sacred essence of the earth. Wiccan magic and rituals are meant to bring about good and engender a healthy and harmonious life for its practitioners. The example of Wiccan “witches” serves to illustrate the differences

30  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

between anthropological terminology and actual word use within cultures. An anthropologist studying Wicca might describe the religious specialists as shamans in an ethnography, thereby capturing the actual role a Wiccan witch plays in her society. In similar fashion, a culture might call their religious practitioner by a term that loosely translates to “priest,” but anthropologically, that individual may be described as a shaman or perhaps a sorcerer. Careful use of anthropological terminology, therefore, with additional description and explanation, alleviates the types of confusion that might occur if an anthropologist is guided only by terms used within the culture. It is admittedly much easier to identify a priest than a shaman; a shaman than a witch. Priests, because of their full-time status, specialized clothing, and symbols of office are more evident in the material culture left behind. This is particularly true if priests were housed separately from the non-religious population, perhaps in specialized areas near or inside a religious structure. This does not mean that shamans are invisible. Shamans, too, have their religious paraphernalia, their costumes, and tools of their trade. In excavating a domestic setting, the archaeologist who discovers items that are unusual, not typically found in other houses, would be wise to wonder “could this be a shaman’s house?” The same methodology used to identify the presence of a shaman might also be used to discover evidence of a witch or sorcerer, especially if the archaeologist suspects the culture under investigation harbored such practitioners. Unusual items, hidden away in a secret household compartment, might be a wonderful clue alerting an archaeologist to the possibility of a less-than-helpful religious practitioner. It is, however, most difficult to identify these practitioners in the archaeological record; while evidence of shamans and priests are often described in archaeological accounts, witches and sorcerers are peculiarly absent from the past. It is not that they weren’t there, just that as they sought to remain hidden in their own cultures, so do they remain hidden to us. Conclusion A great deal of information has been covered in this chapter, much of it theoretically and methodologically based. While the ideas and methods outlined cannot begin to act as a “field guide” for an archaeologist intending to reveal an ancient belief system, they are useful for understanding the material presented in the book and what a holistic approach to the study of past cultures and religions can reveal about humanity.

Chapter 3

The World of the Shaman

The religious practitioners known as shamans warrant an entire chapter because of the antiquity of shamanic practice and the complexity of the shaman’s role in human cultures both past and present (Vitebsky 1995). Given the assumed ubiquity of shamanic presence in past cultures, archaeologists are perhaps even more likely to investigate cultures within which shamans may have practiced. This chapter delves into the “nature” of the shaman and shamanic ritual activities might be recognized in the archaeological record. The Nature of the Shaman The word shaman comes from a Tungus word used to describe this Siberian culture’s religious agent (Howells 1948). The term was adopted by anthropologists to describe individuals who carried out ritual practices on behalf of their indigenous communities (Figure  3.1), though the diverse nature of such practices has thwarted a widely accepted definition of shamanism (Price 2011). Early anthropological accounts suggested shamans were mentally unbalanced and thus capable of extraordinary psychotic abilities (e.g., Narby and Huxley 2001). This interpretation was based, in part, on shamanic activities, which can include elaborate costuming, strenuous body movements, chanting and/or singing, and carrying noise and music-making devices and other paraphernalia (Winkelman 2008). Research continues to suggest that there may often be strong links between shamanic creativity, intense emotional conditions, and mood disorders (Whitley 2019). Though not all anthropologists agree that the term “shaman” should be applied to practitioners who are not priests, witches, or sorcerers (Kehoe 2000; Sidky 2010; Townsend 1997), archaeologists are fortunate to find any remnants of religious behavior. Thus, approaching the discussion of shamanism with such nuanced sensitivity is, unfortunately, usually unnecessary. For the purposes of this book, and as is generally found in archaeology, the term “shaman” will be used to describe actors who carry out numerous services for their cultures but are not identified as priests. By examining the role of the shaman and the DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-4

32  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

Figure 3.1 Photo of Tungus shaman (Siberia) taken in 1883 (public domain).

material culture associated with the shaman’s activities, we can identify methods for recognizing the presence of such practitioners in the archaeological record. Who Becomes the Shaman?

Shamans are chosen according to the custom in their cultures. Among the Kalahari Bushmen of Africa, half of the people in an entire band might become shamans.

The World of the Shaman 33

Usually, however, shamans are fewer in number and are selected by a specific process. The position might be inherited, passed from parent to child. A propitious birth, special abilities in a child, or a simple apprenticeship with a shaman are all various paths to shamanism. Although shamans are more commonly male, many cultures also recognize female shamans. In small-scale farming and market cultures, it may be either or both sexes who become the shaman-healers, while, in larger complex societies practicing multiple religions, women sometimes act as the shamans while men become the priests (Townsend 1997). The Sora culture in India practices small-scale rice cultivation. Shamans in the Sora culture are usually female. Sora girls who will become shamans are visited by spirits and taught how to enter the underworld. In addition to diagnosing and healing, the most important duties for Sora shamans is to act as intermediaries between the living and the recently dead, especially to encourage the deceased soul to journey on to the underworld (Vitebsky 1993). In addition to Buddhism, Confucianism, and Christianity in South Korea, there are women known as mansin who practice shamanism. Mansin are considered divinely inspired and are called to their profession by the gods; they act as both healers and seers (Choi 2003; Kendall 1985). Clients come to the mansin and explain their concerns, the mansin then uses her clairvoyance to interpret the client’s problems and recommend solutions (Choi 2003). Beyond the notion that the shaman acts or thinks differently from the norm, they are sometimes seen as possessing a dual gender or as transgendered in some way. This is particularly true in Siberian shamanism, where religious practitioners are considered androgynous and able to change their sex with the aid of spiritual helpers (Stutley 2003; Balzer 2003). Religious practitioners capable of understanding both male and female perspectives due to their dual gender status can also be found among Native American, Southeast Asian, and African cultures. The Role of the Shaman

One of the reasons it takes an entire chapter to explain this religious practitioner’s role in society is that it is so varied. Terms that describe the shaman’s role include healer, medium, problem-solver, diviner, sorcerer, pharmacologist, and entertainer. These are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, in many cultures the shaman is expected to carry out many or all of these tasks. It takes great skill for shamans to be successful in any of these endeavors and gain the trust and respect of their people. Commonly in cultures, the shaman serves as a healer. Some cultures believe that spirits cause illness, while others believe magic, sorcery, witchcraft or even another shaman are to blame. People may become sick from inadvertent contact with some polluting substance or person or due to their own intentional but inappropriate actions. Often, it is believed that the person’s soul has become ill, in turn causing the physical body to also succumb (Stutley 2003). A shaman must first determine the cause of the illness—i.e., did it come from spirits, sorcery,

34  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

actions by the victim, or by other magical or human means. Secondly the shaman must identify the healing process for the victim, identifying the proper ceremonies, medicines, performances, prayers, or actions to drive out the illness and restore the soul and body to health. Among the Jivaro in South America, the shaman ingests a drink in the afternoon and early evening that allows him to see into the victim’s body as if it were transparent; the shaman then discerns what is causing the illness and the proper treatment (Harner 2003). Quite often, the illness is caused by a dart, visible only to the shaman, shot into the victim by a sorcerer or adversary; extracting the poisoned item should then return the victim to health (Harner 1968). In many cultures, counsel from the supernatural world is required to determine the cause of illness and the appropriate cure; it is here that the shaman becomes a medium who acts as a conduit between “this” world and the “other,” whatever that other is in any given culture. The shaman may serve not only as conduit but as host. While acting as a medium, which usually involves a trance state, the shaman can speak for or as the supernatural agent (Lewis 2003; Narby 2001). In this way, the shaman brings the supernatural world to that of the humans, imparting messages and even carrying out acts that spirits cannot do in their own world. Beyond this, however, the shaman’s soul may traverse into the other plane and interact with souls and spirits there, both imparting and retrieving information. In some cultures, the shaman helps the souls of the recently dead find their way to the world of the dead, or shamans “scare away” souls or ghosts who are unwilling to depart from “this” world (Hutton 2001). Because of their intimate interaction with the supernatural, shamans run the risk of being accused of bringing illness or other ill will to stricken victims; there is often a very fine line between shaman and sorcerer. When adversity arises, people turn to the shaman to alleviate the problem. Should a rash of unpleasant events occur in a village and sorcery is suspected, the shaman will be called upon to discern the source, such as a neighboring village, recent visitors, or rival shamans. Information as to proper action to counteract the sorcery will also be requested. Among the Kalahari Bushmen, shamans will take action if, for instance, rainfall slows or ceases or the hunts have been unsuccessful. Shamans enter trances that allow entrance into the supernatural world to determine the problem and negotiate a solution (Lee 1984). Shamans also perform ceremonies to head off such problems. In some Siberian cultures, the shaman carries out a “good luck” ceremony prior to the major hunting season (Hamayon 2003). This ritual ensures that the coming hunts will be successful and that the cosmological balance will not be upset by the death of the animals. Should the ritual not occur, not only would the hunters be unsuccessful but animals would fail to reproduce, and real destruction might rain down on the culture. The shaman, then, is the ultimate problem-solver. Retrieving information about the future through divination is another task a culture may ask its shamans to perform. Objects such as bones, the internal organs of recently sacrificed animals, or ritual objects made of wood, metal, and

The World of the Shaman 35

other materials can assist in the divination. There are many paths to divination; in Thailand a shaman might use astrology, numerology, the number and pattern of facial blemishes, and dream interpretation to offer information on everything from suitable marriage partners and future pregnancies to diagnoses of illness (Heinze 2004). In the African cattle-herding Samburu culture, the laibon (shaman-diviner) determines what type of sorcery has caused someone to fall ill by casting divination stones and reading the patterns (Fraktin 2004). The laibon not only divines the ensorcellment but also concocts a medicine to cure the illness, drawing on knowledge of herbo-pharmacology. Anthropologists have long known—and pharmaceutical companies are realizing—that members of indigenous cultures have a tremendous store of knowledge about the healing properties of plants (Davis 1995). Shamans rely on traditional plants to prepare medicines and proscribe cures for victims. It is common that the specific knowledge of proper amounts and mixtures of plants is possessed only by trained indigenous healers, making this knowledge a mainstay in their power as shamans. Another role the shaman plays is storyteller or performer, which can also serve as entertainment. In order to interact with the supernatural world, the shaman must either travel there, usually in a trance, or alternatively, bring supernatural members to the shaman’s plane of existence. The shaman’s entrance to another world may be something of a public spectacle, offering a type of visual entertainment for spectators who might even take part on some level. Kalahari Bushmen carry out a “trance dance,” in which healer-shamans dance around a campfire, fall into a state of hypnotic exhaustion, and then discern the cause of an illness and attempt to cure it. Non-dancers clap, sing, and provide music, in this way taking part in the healing ceremony. In other cases, the healing of the victim is something akin to a performance. Many Amazonian cultures believe illness results from invisible darts shot by sorcerers into their victims. The shaman must first determine the type of dart (and possibly the identity of the sorcerer) through interaction with the supernatural world. The shaman ingests a hallucinogenic drink commonly called ayahuasca or yage and then enters a trance (Harner 1968; Johnson 2003; Rogers 1982); the shaman can then determine the location of the dart(s) in the victim’s body (Figure 3.2). The following account from one anthropologist displays the theatrical nature of the search for and extraction of these darts (Brown 1989: 8): As darkness fell upon us, the patients and their kin waited for Yankush [the shaman] to enter into a trance induced by a bitter, hallucinogenic concoction he had taken just before sunset (it is made from a vine known as ayahuasca). While the visitors exchanged gossip and small talk, Yankush sat facing the wall of his house, whistling healing songs and waving a bundle of leaves that served as a fan and soft rattle. Abruptly, he told the two women to lie on banana leaves that had been spread on the floor, so that he could use his visionary powers to search their bodies for tiny points of light, the telltale

36  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

signature of the sorcerer’s darts. As Yankush’s intoxication increased, his meditative singing gave way to violent retching. Gaining control of himself, he sucked noisily on the patients’ bodies in an effort to remove the darts. During the ceremony, family and visitors shout encouragement to the shaman and generally take part as non-healing bystanders. Eventually, after several hours, the shaman extracts the darts and sends his patient home with recommendations for herbal medicine. In some cultures, the shaman actually “spits out” the darts, either as a bit of blood or as an actual object; this allows the audience to observe that the source of illness is now gone from the victim. In large part, the success of the shaman is derived from how convincing the performance is. The Successful Shaman

Claude Lévi-Strauss perhaps said it best when he declared “Quesalid [the shaman] did not become a great shaman because he cured his patients; he cured

Figure 3.2 Artistic rendering of an entranced shaman attempting to heal a victim of sorcery (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

The World of the Shaman 37

his patients because he had become a great shaman” (1963: 180). Quesalid, a Kwakiutl shaman, lived in British Columbia in the early twentieth century. Interestingly, he did not believe in the power of his culture’s shamans, and so he undertook an apprenticeship to prove their falsity. He learned some “shamanic tricks” but before he could proclaim shamans as frauds, he himself was called to heal a sick person (Lévi-Strauss 1963). Quesalid went on to have a great career as a healer but realized that much of his skill came from the fact that his patients believed that he would heal them, not because of the “trickery” he used in the healing rituals. This is one of the key concepts in successful shamanism as well as the efficacy of sorcery: the belief that it is real. Given this essential belief in a shaman’s abilities, shamanic success is not a given. The shaman must take steps to either maintain or attain reputable standing in the community. Then the shaman must be proficient not only in herbal lore, chants and rituals, and other skills recognized in the culture but must be able to perform so that all witnesses are convinced that cures or problem-solving has taken place. This means that an expertise in slight-of-hand, acting ability, and showmanship is a must. An anthropologist in Nepal experienced a shamanic healing ceremony (Hitchcock 2001). Sakrante, the village blacksmith, had donned his shamanic costume and extracted evil substances not only from the anthropologist but from other attendees as well. His entire performance, consisting of bodily movements, drumming and singing, and mediumistic activities and spirit possession, included searching out witches and predicting the future. The anthropologist says of the performer, “I remember that even after Sakrante had removed his costume, slowly and carefully putting each item away in the wicker basket, the spell cast by his drumming and singing remained on us all” (Hitchcock 2001: 2–3). The title of the article about Sakrante, “Remarkably Good Theater,” illustrates a main tenet of the successful shaman. This aspect of shamanic healing is not terribly different from that of modern Western medicine. Everyone has heard of the ill person who took “medicine” and later learned, after the problem was indeed cured, that the patient had taken a placebo. Simple faith in the power of Western medicine and its drugs is a powerful element in the successful efforts of Western doctors, just as belief in the power of the shaman is crucial in traditional religions. Unfortunately, this faith is not visible in the archaeological record, but the items the shaman uses to carry out performances and reinforce that faith sometimes are. The Shaman’s Tools Shamans frequently have spirit helpers who assist them in their travels to and within the supernatural plane and even guide the shaman back to the world of humans. In many cultures, the spirit helper is considered the alter-ego of the shaman, and in fact, it is the spirit helper’s form the shaman takes during travel to

38  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

the supernatural world. In the Sora culture, shamans are guided by the spirits of earlier shamans (Vitebsky 1995), while, in other cultures, spirit helpers come in the form of animals. Powerful shamans may have more than one animal spirit helping them, each responsible for different courses of action, one to chase away evil spirits, one to help with healing, and so forth (Hutton 2001). Besides assisting the shaman, helper spirits guard against attack from hostile spirits or other forces bent on impeding the shaman’s work. In many cases, the shaman’s costume may reflect the nature of the spirit helper. If the spirit helper’s animal form is, for instance, a snake or a bird, the costume may consist of snake skins or feathers. In other cultures the shaman’s costume may contain images or purported parts of mythical animals as well as noise-making objects such as rattles and bells (Figure 3.3) and other items considered sacred or magical (Stutley 2003). The shaman wears the costume only when engaged by a client to carry out a requested ceremony or task. Music often accompanies the shaman’s work. Drums are common accoutrements in Siberia, while shamans in the Amazon make use of a flute. Rattles of various types are used throughout the Americas and the Sora shamans of India use the sound of horns. Songs and musical chanting are also commonly used in the shamanic performance. The shaman also makes use of a variety of other tools, depending on what the culture perceives as sacred or magical. The Samburu laibon uses sacred stones for divination; other paraphernalia such as sticks, baskets, beads, animal skins, crystals, and any other manner of things might be in the shaman’s took kit. In many cases, these items are sacred and are therefore handled only by the shaman; but in others, it is the shaman’s skill that ignites the power in what is otherwise a mundane object found in any household. Whether a culture’s shaman is a healer, medium, diviner, or all of these, entering the spirit world or inviting spirits to the human plane usually requires a shamanic state of consciousness (SSC), also known as an altered state of consciousness (ASC). To achieve ASC the shaman might use a type of self-hypnosis, including physical exhaustion as in the Bushman Trance Dance, hyperventilation, some type of meditation, or another physical activity designed to induce trance. More often, though, hallucinogenic plants or other consumable or inhalable items that produce altered states can be used. Hallucination-aiding products include alcoholic drinks, mind-altering drugs, tobacco smoke, and foods that have trance-inducing properties. Often only shamans enter ASC as it is believed that a shaman’s soul leaves the body and embarks on a journey to the supernatural world, or that a shaman’s body is inhabited by spirits. Many cultures, especially those with practicing shamans, envision the universe as consisting of various layers; these layers may be places of great danger, inhabited by supernatural beings who may or may not be friendly to those who dwell in the human layer. Not only is passage from one layer to another difficult but surviving in a non-human layer is also a serious challenge. While there, the soul might be in some danger, and if injured, killed,

The World of the Shaman 39

Figure 3.3 P hoto of nineteenth-century shaman’s clothing in Gun Galut, Mongolia. Note fringe and noise-making bells (photo by S. R. Steadman).

or otherwise detained, the shaman’s human life is forfeit. Even with the aid of a spirit helper, it is only the skilled practitioner who can navigate the treacherous landscape of the spirit world and return with the necessary information—or with the required spirit—in tow. For instance, when the Siberian Yakut shaman

40  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

is ready to embark on an ASC-induced journey, he dons his costume and is then strapped to a tent pole or other object to keep his body in this world and prevent the spirits from carrying him off, literally body and soul (Grim 1983). In many cases there are physiological alterations in the shaman’s body while in a trance; sometimes, the pulse races madly, while other shamans exhibit such slow breathing and heartbeat their bodies appear to be on the threshold of death. In most cultures, the shamanic ASC and trance journey is considered a stressful and difficult undertaking, and only the most powerful of shamans can accomplish this task regularly. Other tools may be individual to a particular culture. For instance, North American Ojibway shamans keep records of their performances. Symbols of the shaman’s chants are etched into birch bark, acting not only as a mnemonic device for the spoken invocation but as a type of story of the ritual (Grim 1983). Inside an Ojibway shaman’s lodge are numerous pieces of birch bark scrolls with pictographic symbols can be found, along with musical instruments that accompany rituals (Grim 2003). Such tools would be unique to the shaman and probably would not be part of the archaeological assemblage from the average non-shaman household. Finding Shamans in the Archaeological Record Finding the shaman when you enter a village for your ethnographic fieldwork is one thing; identifying them in the archaeological record is another entirely. Statues and drawings of religious practitioners that have labels on them in the culture’s language are great, but more often than not, these are priests rather than shamans. Shamans are far more elusive, in part because their part-time status makes them look, archaeologically, pretty much like everyone else. Armed with the type of knowledge described in the foregoing sections, archaeologists have made great strides in highlighting possible evidence of shamans in their ancient contexts. The following sections profile some methods that have been used to track the presence of shamans through the extant material record. Shamans and Rock Art

The literature on rock art research is vast, in part because such images appear on all of the inhabited continents. Beyond their ubiquity, though, is the question of the ancient motivation to create such art. Some have recognized the historical narrative aspect that details great battles and other events worthy of memory (Klassen 1998), while others have suggested that rock art can function as territorial markers (Bradley 1998). Using an ethnographic approach, Layton (2001) recognizes that a few examples of rock art may be nothing more than someone’s doodles while stuck inside a cave on a rainy day. However, most agree that the vast majority of rock art has religious significance, and in many cases, may

The World of the Shaman 41

be related to shamanic activities. Interpreting rock art requires a detailed study of the images, their placement regarding one another and in their context (i.e., cave, landscape), their form, and many other aspects of the art itself (e.g., LeroiGourhan 1965; Clottes 1998; Conkey 1989, 2001). In some cases, archaeologists may use ethnographic analogy or direct interpretation by living informants (Clottes 2002). Often, however, the rock art was made so long ago that the time disconnect between the original artists and those living today nullifies any possible interpretive analogy. In places where there is virtually no connection between the living population and the rock art artists—for instance, in Europe or Central Asia—archaeologists must rely on other avenues of evidence, using ethnographic analogy only in the most general sense of “why people decorate rocks” in that region of the world. Interpreting rock art is discussed in more detail in Chapters 5 and 6, but some basic concepts as they relate to shamanism are quite relevant here. Quite frequently, rock art images include therianthropes, or combination beings, usually of animals and humans. Therianthropes may be anatomically part human and part animal, or sometimes the ancient artist made a clear attempt to show a human wearing an animal costume or perhaps in the mid-stages of transformation, as seen in the Palaeolithic French example in Les Trois Fréres cave (Figure  3.4). Some suggest this human-animal connection in rock art depicts a totemistic system representing ancestors of the living (Layton 2001). A more common explanation for these images relates more directly to shamanic activity, namely, that it depicts the shaman’s journey to the spirit world or the spirit inhabiting the shaman’s body. The animal represents either the shaman’s hybrid spirit or spirit helper. Images depicting a transformation or costuming could be interpreted as the shaman in costume or in the actual throes of spirit possession (Aldhouse-Green and Aldhouse-Green 2005; Lewis-Williams 2002; Whitley 2011). Totemistic representations and a shamanic journey are only two possible explanations for the fairly frequent depiction of therianthropes. However, these are admittedly curious images and, since they fit nicely with ethnographic accounts regarding the close ties between animals, animal spirits, and shamans, such images can often be considered as renderings of ritual or shamanic activity. A second category involving the human form is that of anthropomorphs. These are figures that appear human but may include some aspect that implies the subject is “more” than just a normal human being. Examples of anthropomorphs might include humans with oversized body parts such as hands, head, or torso. In other cases, the figure may have a body part that appears as another object, such sun rays extending from the head or an arm that merges into a sword or other weapon (Figure 3.5). These anthropomorphic images have been interpreted as representing part of the shamanic costume (Devlet 2001). A  sub-category of anthropomorphic figures are images known as “X-ray style.” These figures appear to show the person’s internal organs or skeletal structure. X-ray-style figures are found in Asian, Siberian, and in North American rock art, and are

42  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

Figure 3.4  Drawing representing the Upper Palaeolithic therianthropic figure painted in the Les Trois Fréres cave in France. The figure has human legs and feet and wears an animal headdress and skins over the torso (drawing by R. Jennison).

Figure 3.5 Sketch of anthropomorphic petroglyph figure with “rays” extending from the head, executed in “X-ray” style showing internal organs (drawing by S. R. Steadman).

The World of the Shaman 43

quite common in Australia. One interpretation for the “transparency” of these figures is that their transformation into a spiritual being is being depicted (Boyd 1998). Another is that shamans, while on their trance-based journey, are in a near-death state and this X-ray imagery depicts their position between the world of the living and the world of the dead (Devlet 2001). There is a very wide range of explanations that might be applied to animal imagery on rock art. Animals may reflect the practice of “sympathetic magic” rituals: Drawing the animal may be seen as a way to ensure a successful hunt, increase the herd, or represent some other aspect of subsistence strategy. In Southern Africa, the Kalahari Bushmen speak of a “rain bull,” an animal depicted in art when rain-making ceremonies occur; in some instances of Great Basin rock art, the mountain sheep serves the same function (Lewis-Williams 1981, 2002; Whitley 1994, 1998). This would explain the ubiquity of these animals in their respective settings, given the importance of rain in these arid landscapes. In other cases, the depiction of animals may herald the transformation of the shaman into an animal spirit or represent his spirit helper. As noted earlier, animals may also represent totemic ancestors as is often the case in Australian rock art. Identifying the meaning of images that fall into the category of “geometric” art is challenging. Typical images include dots, wavy lines, squares and rectangles, circles and ovals, and various abstract forms (Figure 3.6). A major school of thought in rock art research identifies these images as shamanistic in origin, based on the idea that the human nervous system responds in a limited and predictable set of ways when one enters a trance-like state, producing visions that include these geometric figures (Lewis-Williams and Dowson 1988). This explanation, known as a neuropsychological model, describes these visions of geometric figures and abstract forms as entoptic phenomena, meaning a type of internal vision (Lewis-Williams 2002, 2008; Pearson 2002). This theory suggests that all humans see these types of images as they enter trance states because we all share an identical central nervous system. However, cultural differences cause entranced individuals to find different meanings for the geometric forms. In one culture, a circle might represent a hole out of which all life came; in another, the circle is the entrance to a tunnel though which one passes to the spirit world. Wavy lines might represent snakes in one culture, while they represent water in another. This theory would explain why geometric and abstract figures occur in rock art across the world, but it offers significant challenges to archaeologists attempting to interpret such depictions. That shamans are the authors of the rock art stems from the theory that it was they who took the journey represented, witnessed the images later drawn, and had the cosmological and symbolic knowledge to interpret the meaning of what they saw (Whitley 2000; Dowson 1998a; Lewis-Williams 2002). As already discussed, trance states are often considered dangerous and should be induced only in those who know how to travel to the spirit world and return successfully with

44  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

Figure 3.6 G eometric pictographs in Little Blair Valley in southern California, created by the Payómkawichum culture hundreds of years ago (photo by S. R. Steadman).

the desired knowledge; the person who can accomplish such a feat and remain alive is the shaman (Figure  3.7). It is, therefore, the shaman who records the journey on the face of the rock. It should be noted that the neuropsychological model and the interpretation of geometric figures as entoptic phenomena is not a universally accepted explanation (e.g., Bahn 2001; Solomon 1998, 2001). However, the majority of scholarship on rock art interpretation recognizes the merit in the neuropsychological model; archaeologists are discovering greater levels of interpretive opportunities when they apply the model to examples of rock art all over the world. For archaeologists, interpreting the symbolic meaning of rock art is a task fraught with difficulty. The best practice is to go in armed with the requisite research on how to interpret the art from all perspectives, combined with as much knowledge about the culture that produced it as possible. The first step would be to classify and categorize the images, yielding not only a “list” of images but also clues as to the story or setting depicted. Ethnographic analogy, based on informants descended from the ancient artists or even presentday artists from nearby cultures in similar environments, may yield very useful insights. Finally, if the archaeologist suspects the culture under consideration had practicing shamans, considering the neuropsychological model as a method to analyze the images—especially those that are not therianthropic or anthropomorphic, but rather, are abstract or even geometrical—may provide information. With such information, the archaeologist might be able to take the interpretation of the rock art beyond just the date, the method of producing it, and the simple description of the image.

The World of the Shaman 45

Figure 3.7 Artist reconstruction of a person painting a shamanic journey on a stone face (drawing by L. D. Hackley). The Shaman’s Artifact

Besides rock art, there are any number of items found in archaeological contexts that might indicate shamanic presence in the culture. The section on “The Shaman’s Tools” outlined the sorts of things a shaman typically uses while working. Clothing, of course, does not reliably remain in the archaeological record, but parts of musical instruments might, as could other accoutrements such as the Ojibway birch bark mnemonic device. Objects with geometric forms etched or painted onto them would be good candidates for analysis regarding entoptic phenomena; the material, provenience, and rarity of the item, such as a collection of semi-precious stones or a cache of quartz crystals, might aid in interpretation (Whitley et al. 1999). Therianthropic statuettes and figurines might be indicative of the shamanic role in a society, and the same can be said for anthropomorphic figurines with those over-emphasized features or strange body parts (e.g., Fedorova 2001; Sutherland 2001b).

46  Method, Theory, and the Study of Religion

Conclusion The best approach to finding evidence of shamans in the past is to be openminded but cautious. If the culture under investigation is one that was likely to have had shamans, then the occasional hint as to their presence should be anticipated. Hints might include any of the types of artifacts suggested earlier; perhaps a larger house with an unexplainable open area (where the shaman carries our performances and healing rituals?), a house with secret compartments and unusual layout, even unusual containers that might have held the shaman’s medicines or trance-producing potions or drugs serve as subtle clues. A culture that produced rock art might be a relative gold mine of information. One must, however, guard against the tendency to over-interpret something that might well be a basic utilitarian item. Cautious and careful analysis, with the addition of a detailed understanding of the world of the shaman, may indeed yield some fascinating insights into a culture’s religious practitioner.

Part II

The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Chapter 4

The First Spark of Religion Neanderthals

As the title suggests, this chapter examines the earliest evidence for religion. Did modern humans (Homo sapiens) invent religion, or should we attribute it to our forbearers on the human evolutionary ladder? Evidence indicates that the boast of “first religion” belongs to our evolutionary cousins, the Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis), and possibly, to even earlier ancestors. Religion Before the Neanderthals? First, perhaps, it is relevant to ask whether any evidence for pre-Neanderthal ritual behavior exists. Some of the most suggestive evidence comes from Atapuerca Cave in Spain (Figure 4.1), where two sets of fossils raise interesting questions. One set of fossils from an area known as Sima de los Huesos, the “pit of bones,” dates to approximately 430,000 years ago and are tentatively identified as Homo heidelbergensis (the possible direct ancestor to Neanderthals in Europe). In this “pit,” a vertical shaft roughly 40 feet deep, were the remains of 29 hominins, along with the bones of animals including bears (Figure 4.2). The hominins are primarily sub-adults (teenagers and younger) of both sexes; two intentional blows to the head of one individual suggests an example of interpersonal violence (Bermúdez de Castro et al. 2021; Sala et al. 2015). Evidence suggests they were intentionally deposited into the shaft by other hominins, perhaps as an attempt to “bury” them. Very near Atapuerca is the Gran Dolina cave site in which Homo antecessor (a species pre-dating Homo heidelbergensis) fossils date to at least 800,000 years ago, in which at least seven individuals, ranging in age from approximately 3 to 17, were discovered. These fossils show evidence of intentional butchering including scalping and skinning; human tooth marks were discernable, marrow was extracted from broken long bones, and broken skull caps indicate brain consumption (Saladié and Rodríguez 2017). It might be a stretch to suggest the tossing of hominins down a shaft or eating the flesh of a fellow hominin is ritualistic without additional evidence. It is enough, perhaps, to acknowledge that the “first spark” of religion may one day be proven to rest with hominins who even pre-date the Neanderthals. DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-6

50  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 4.1 M ap of sites mentioned in the chapter (map by S. R. Steadman).

Figure 4.2 S ketch of the Atapuerca “Pit of Bones” (“La Sima de los Huesos”) site (drawing by S. R. Steadman).

Who were the Neanderthals? While modern humans continued their evolutionary journey in Africa, Neanderthals evolved in Europe and much of Western Asia. These two species separated from a common ancestor, possibly Homo heidelbergensis, approximately 500,000 years ago, making Neanderthals the closest relatives to modern humans. Neanderthals were first discovered in the nineteenth century in the Neander Valley (Thal) in Germany, and for decades, were considered brutish, lumbering, and stupid cave-dwelling creatures. This description, however, is a far cry from

The First Spark of Religion 51

Figure 4.3 Illustration in the book The Outline of History, by H. G. Wells, showing “Neanderthal Man,” published in 1923; the drawing is by J. F. Horrabin (n.d., public domain).

the actual truth of the strong, intelligent, and inventive hominins they actually were. The misguided views of Neanderthals as more beast than human resulted from an examination of the “Old Man of La Chapelle,” a Neanderthal 40–50 years of age, discovered at this French site in 1908. The French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule, examined the La Chapelle bones in 1910 and emphasized the apparent deformities of the skeletal remains, describing them as far-removed from modern humans and using words such as beastly, brutish, and stupid in his descriptions. His report created the image of a “man-beast” in the minds of those interested in early human research (Figure 4.3). Over the next decades, however, several hundred other Neanderthal bones were analyzed by other researchers, and in the 1950s, the La Chapelle fossils were re-examined. The “Old Man” was found to have suffered from crippling arthritis, causing misshapen bones and, indeed, making him look quite different from a healthy modern human. By 1960, anthropologists and anatomists had revised their opinions of Neanderthals with many suggesting that if a “cleaned up” Neanderthal man sat beside you on a bus in Paris or the subway in New York no one would notice any difference from the many “modern” denizens of these two cities (Figure 4.4). This “new view” of the Neanderthal has, however, been slow to make its way into the public’s imagination. Fossil evidence suggests Neanderthals came on the scene of Europe and Western Asia by about 400,000 years ago; we see the last of them by about 35,000 years ago. In the latter stages of the Pleistocene (Ice Age), Europe and Western Asia were much colder than today, though some areas such as France, Spain, and Israel were certainly warmer than other places such as Germany. Neanderthals had

52  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 4.4 Artist reconstruction of more present-day understanding of Neanderthal appearance (drawing by L. D. Hackley).

bodies that were stockier than modern H. sapiens, with larger nose cavities that served to warm the air they breathed before it hit their lungs. Skulls sloped back over brain cases housing a brain larger than that of modern humans. One of the best-known features of the Neanderthal is the prominent brow ridge which some describe as resembling McDonald’s “golden arches” (Tattersall and Schwartz 2000: 198). This archaic feature gives the Neanderthal face seemingly deep-set eyes; this feature is shared with early (archaic) H. sapiens. Besides these facial features, longer and thicker fingers, and a shorter and stockier stature, there is little in the Neanderthal appearance that would be noticeable in a large crowd of modern humans. Neanderthals made use of a stone tool kit known as Mousterian that included cutters, choppers, scrapers, and points that may have been hafted onto hand-held spears. Many Mousterian tools show evidence of sharpening and refashioning for reuse. Neanderthals understood the utility of reshaping a larger tool into a smaller one when the larger had become too dull or otherwise useless. Neanderthals were hunters and foragers who lived in mobile groups, inhabiting rock shelters and caves as well as open campsites across the landscape. They appear to have organized their space in caves, making distinctions between areas where “trash” was deposited and where cooking and storage took place. We do not know how Neanderthals divided up labor, though based on present-day hunter-gatherers, we may speculate that women did the majority of gathering and men the hunting. They enjoyed a varied diet of plants and starchy carbohydraterich plant foods, some requiring preparation steps for palatability (Kabukcu et al. 2022); evidence also suggests Neanderthals consumed certain plants for medicinal reasons (Hardy et al. 2013). DNA research has indicated that Neanderthal females may have left their natal group to form mating bonds with males in other

The First Spark of Religion 53

groups, a pattern known as “patrilocal residence” (Lalueza-Fox et al. 2010). This offers some suggestion of kinship patterns among the Neanderthals. Hunting of small and medium-sized animals may have been accomplished in groups rather than individually, but large game hunting was almost certainly done in groups. One reason for group hunting is because rather than throwing spears Neanderthals used short spears that could be thrust into an animal. This meant Neanderthals had to get up close to their prey. Even deer can have sharp horns that can easily eviscerate an inattentive hunter. Several Neanderthals simultaneously attacking an animal would mean a quicker kill with less chance for injury. Long debate about the Neanderthal ability to communicate verbally like their H. sapiens cousins is reaching the conclusion that Neanderthals were fully articulate (Dediu and Levinson 2018). Sophisticated communication skills would explain their long-term survival in the somewhat difficult Pleistocene world and their success at hunting large game with their tool kit. It also deflates the theory that it was the superior communicative abilities of H. sapiens that doomed the otherwise intelligent and successful Neanderthals to extinction. The reason for the extinction of Neanderthals is still open to debate. Their disappearance coincides with the arrival of H. sapiens into Europe and Western Asia, with an overlap of perhaps 10,000 years across the expanse of Europe and Western Asia, but any given overlap was likely short in duration. Competition with H. sapiens for resources may have been an overwhelming obstacle. It is also possible that a dwindling Neanderthal population faced problems associated with low genetic diversity (Rios et al. 2019), perhaps leading to lowered successful birth rates and higher cases of health issues. Likely, it was a combination of many reasons that ultimately favored the H. sapiens over their Neanderthal cousins. However, DNA evidence in modern humans (Reilly et al. 2022) shows that there was at least some intimate interaction between the species; most nonAfrican humans today have at least 1% Neanderthal DNA in their make-up. Neanderthal Sites in Europe and Western Asia: Rituals in Caves? Our main information about Neanderthals and their possible ritual behavior comes from burial sites in France, Iraq, and the Levant, with a few scattered sets of data from other sites in Europe and Russia. Dozens of Neanderthal burials have been identified as intentional (Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992), but few of these sites are without controversy. While many consider the Neanderthal sites to exhibit incontrovertible evidence of intentional burial and ritual behavior, others explain away the evidence as post-depositional natural actions of wind, rain, and rodent activity (Chase and Dibble 1987; Dibble et al. 2015; Gargett 1989, 1999), though this is a minority view. Most archaeologists who study European and Western Asian Neanderthal sites argue that the evidence is certainly indicative of some level of symbolic behavior or religious belief system. Identifying

54  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

the specific beliefs that may have existed in Neanderthal communities is where the greatest difficulty lies. While accepting that we will probably never know in detail what Neanderthal rituals and beliefs might have been, we can certainly follow the evidence toward measured and evidence-based speculations. The following discussion examines evidence for Neanderthal symbolic behavior, Neanderthal burials, and the possibility of Neanderthal death rituals and whether they had shaman-like religious practitioners or perhaps practiced some type of ancestor veneration. Neanderthal Symbolic Belief

An argument regarding Neanderthal ritual behavior implies that they were capable of symbolic beliefs, exhibited by group activities such as singing together, understanding the meaning of non-utilitarian actions such as painting, and even recognizing the existence of entities beyond those seen in daily life (Rossano and Vandewalle 2016). The archaeological record has offered extensive evidence that Neanderthals engaged in behavior reflecting symbolic beliefs. An example of this comes from Bruniquel Cave in France, where Neanderthals, over 175,000 years ago, journeyed over 300 meters into the depths of the cave to construct a series of six circles out of stalagmites (Jaubert et al. 2016). Fires were built upon the stones, causing them to redden and blacken. A fire elsewhere in the cave may have provided light; burned animal bone may suggest food consumption. Whether a singular construction or one made over a series of visits, these stone circles suggest cooperative social organization and the creation of a space, deep within a cave, for symbolic rather than utilitarian reasons. There is quite extensive evidence for Neanderthals creating jewelry and other self-ornamentation, perhaps for mere beautification purposes (which is, in itself, symbolic behavior) or perhaps to offer signals regarding status (for instance, kinship affiliation, personal accomplishments). Studies show that Neanderthals extracted wing feathers from raptors and other birds as well as created jewelry from their bones (Figure 4.5), most likely for personal ornamentation (Finlayson et al. 2012; Radovčić et al. 2015). The discovery of pigment-stained shells at several sites has also led to the conclusion that Neanderthals may have used these shells as ornaments or used their bowl-shape to contain pigments used to paint their bodies (Zilhão et al. 2010). Somewhat uncertain evidence includes the attribution of rock art to the hands of Neanderthals. A  number of cave walls in Spain offer examples of engraved and painted art, including painted “hand stencils”; however, many of these date to periods when H. sapiens were also present in Europe, bringing into question who might have been the actual artists. Another set of paintings in the Cuerva de Ardales cave in Spain, discovered well over a century ago, offers more possible evidence demonstrating that Neanderthals were indeed capable of symbolic behavior. Dating of deposits associated with pigments on the cave walls place

The First Spark of Religion 55

Figure 4.5  J ewelry assemblage made of white-tailed eagle talons found in Krapina Cave in Croatia (Luka Mjeda, 2015, CC BY 4.0).

their creation between 65,000 and 45,000 years ago, before the confirmed arrival of Homo sapiens in Europe (Marti et al. 2020), though additional dating of this art is necessary for confirmation. The pigments are more in the form of marks rather than identifiable images, leading some to suggest they serve as a form of symbolic place marking, perhaps in the same vein as the stalagmites in Bruniquel Cave. Neanderthals and Cannibalism

Among the Neanderthal behaviors discussed in this chapter, the least controversial concerns cannibalism. Indeed, given the Gran Dolina evidence, hominin cannibalistic behavior seems almost a given. Disputes about this practice focus not on cannibalistic behavior but whether it resulted from a Neanderthal need for a meat source or from ritualistic behavior. The cave site of Monte Circeo, discovered in 1939, offered what at the time was “sensational” evidence of Neanderthal cannibalism. An amateur archaeologist claimed that a broken skull had been placed in a circle of stones after a ritual cannibalism of the brain material (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992). Modern investigation of the cave and evidence has shown that the stones were simply the result of natural taphonomy, and that the break in the skull likely resulted from a rock fall as a Neanderthal-induced blow. The loss of the Monte Circeo “evidence” of cannibalism, however, does not mean that such practices did not exist.

56  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

In contrast to the Monte Circeo discovery, the 1899–1905 excavations at the site of Krapina, near Zagreb, Croatia, were systematic, scientific, and carefully recorded. The excavator, Gorjanović, was fastidious in keeping notes on his stratigraphic excavations and detailing the discovery of human and animal fossils in each layer; Gorjanović collected hundreds of Neanderthal bones, ranging in date from 127,000–115,000 years ago. Most of these specimens were broken and disarticulated, and their presence among other animal bones, along with their fragmented state, caused Gorjanović to suggest they resulted from cannibalism. Other sites present much more certain evidence of cannibalistic behavior. A more recent discovery at the Moula-Guercy shelter in France lends credence to the cannibalism theory. Excavations in the 1990s revealed that at least six Neanderthal individuals were represented and that the cut marks on their bones are the same as those appearing on faunal remains in which flesh has been removed (Defleur et al. 1999). Other French sites also demonstrate evidence of cannibalism. Les Pradelles (58,000 bp) revealed seven Neanderthals ranging from adult to infant. All of these individuals bore cutmarks on their bones, similar to those on fauna also found in the cave. Similar discoveries were made at the French site of Goyet Cave (ca. 45,000 bp) (Saladié and Rodríguez-Hidelgo 2017). Spain also features cannibalistic behavior at the site of El Sidrón, dating to approximately 50,000 years ago, where a collection of Neanderthal remains were found in association with evidence of lithic production (Yuston and de los Terreros 2015). Cut marks on the 13 individuals there, primarily on the long bones, are clear indications that Neanderthals removed flesh from these remains. While it is clear Neanderthals were removing the flesh from others of their kind, the reasons for the removal of the meat are less clear. Some scholars have argued that cannibalism occurred primarily for nutritional reasons (see, for instance, Defleur and Desclaux 2019 regarding Moula-Guercy). However, other scholars dispute this suggestion, noting that hominin flesh provides fewer calories than the normal animal-based meat diet and that there seem to have been plenty of animal resources available, often found with the Neanderthal remains (Cole 2017; Slimak and Nicholson 2020). Alternative explanations involve more ritually based reasons for cannibalistic practice. One possibility is “exocannibalism,” or the consuming of an outside group. Ethnographically, this practice occurs in disputes over territory or other perceived infractions; ritually consuming the “enemy” constitutes the ultimate defeat. In fact, the cannibalized group at El Sidrón seems to have been somewhat inbred (Rios et al. 2019); they were possibly killed (and eaten) by a rival/competitive group. A possible case of interpersonal violence at the French site of St. Césaire, somewhere around 40,000 bp or just after, suggests that conflict among Neanderthals must have occurred (Zollikofer et  al. 2002), though it should be noted that this example falls within the period of interaction with H. sapiens! Ethnographic examples also offer ritual behaviors including consuming the flesh of deceased family or community members to allow their spirits to continue on and/or to absorb their special characteristics.

The First Spark of Religion 57 Neanderthal Burials: Shamans, Ancestors, and the Concept of Death

Extensive evidence for Neanderthal ritual behavior is found in burials that appear intentional. Living Neanderthals apparently dug a “grave” or intentionally piled stones or other materials over someone who had died. The important question here is what might have motivated Neanderthals to exert themselves for the dead. Of course, the most prosaic explanation is that they were simply getting the body “out of the way” or even burying it to cut down on the smell. However, simply removing the body to somewhere outside the living area would accomplish the same goal. The “Old Man” of La Chapelle, described earlier, was laid within a pit, on his back, with his head facing west. The pit in which he rested had been filled with deposit different from that surrounding the burial, indicating intentionality in the creation of his resting place and the infilling after he was placed in it. There are other similar examples, spanning sites stretching from France to Russia, and in the Levant and Iraq (Maurielle 2022). At Dederiyeh Cave, in Syria, a young child, approximately 2 years of age, was buried on its back with its legs flexed. Accompanying the toddler was a rectangular limestone slab placed at the child’s head, and a piece of flint, triangular in shape, placed over the child’s heart (Akazawa et al. 1995). An adult male burial in Kebara Cave in Israel is also worth noting. Excavated in 1983, buried in an intentionally dug pit, this adult male dates to 60,000 years ago. The skeleton was on its back, with one hand placed across the body on the opposite shoulder, with the other resting on the stomach. The most interesting feature is the missing cranium. The fact that the rest of the skeleton is not disturbed, nor does it show animal teeth marks, suggested to the excavators that the cranium was intentionally removed by later Neanderthals rather than by animals. Perhaps the most convincing evidence for ritual behavior comes from two other sites, one in France and one in Iraq. The evidence at the French rock shelter site of La Ferrassie offers not one burial but seven (Gómez-Olivencia et al. 2015). Two of these burials were adults (nos. 1–2 on Figure 4.6), a male and a female; the rest were children ranging in age from a post-natal fetus to 5–7 years. They were interred between 65,000 and 75,000 years ago, in separate pits covered by mounded earth, in flexed positions, with the adult male and female lying head-to-head. Flint tools accompanied the adult male burial and several of the children; other pits had been dug, apparently empty of anything or containing only animal bones. Perhaps the most remarkable feature in this set of burials was the treatment of one of the children, aged approximately 4 years. The skull in this burial had been removed and buried a short distance away. Lying over the skull was a large triangular slab (Figure 4.7); on the underside, eight pairs of cup-like depressions had been carved, with two other depressions in separate positions, for a total of 18 on the slab (Zilhão 2015).

58  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 4.6 Sketch of burial placement in La Ferrassie cave in France (drawing by S. R. Steadman after Spikens et al. 2018: 392, figure 3).

Figure 4.7 Photo of the large stone slab with multiple cupules found lying over a child’s grave in La Ferrassie cave (Don Hitchcock, 2018, CC BY-SA 4.0).

The First Spark of Religion 59

The burials at La Ferrassie have raised numerous questions, including whether this is an intentional “cemetery,” and great curiosity over why the skull of the child was removed and buried separately. Was this young child special, and if so, why? Had s/he been heralded as a potentially important individual in the future and thus death at such a young age dictated special treatment? Was the carved stone used somehow for continued ceremonies even after death? It is notable that so many children are preserved in burials, including in La Ferrassie, given the greater fragility of their bones than those of adults. This suggests that infants and children may have been given specialized burial treatment somewhat regularly (D. Adler, personal communication, 2023), perhaps reflecting the strong feeling of loss felt by Neanderthals facing dwindling numbers and higher infant mortality rates. Unfortunately, none of these interesting theories can be confirmed with the present evidence and thus remain in the realm of speculation. More evidence for Neanderthal intentional burial comes from Shanidar Cave, in Iraq. There are several burials at this site that bear consideration. The cave, excavated by the Soleckis in the 1950s and 1960s, offered nine Neanderthal burials (referred to as Shanidar 1–9), five of which were individual burials, with the other four possibly representing a group burial. Shanidar 4, 6, 8, and 9 were buried either together or shortly after one another. Recently, in new excavations, a portion of a tenth Neanderthal, initially designated “Shanidar Z,” was identified as part of the Shanidar 4 group (Pomeroy et al. 2020). The burials, dating to approximately 50,000 years ago, were superimposed on one another, with Shanidar 4 lying atop the others. Shanidar 4 is an adult between 35 and 40 years in age and probably male, though the bones were in very poor shape, and thus, sex assignment is only provisional (Trinkhaus 1983). Shanidar 6 was perhaps 20–25 years in age, but the Shanidar 8 bones were too fragmented to yield age or sex evidence except to say that it was probably a young adult (Trinkhaus 1983). Shanidar 9 was an infant, perhaps 2 or 3 months in age. This collection of individuals is interesting in and of itself, especially if they were intentionally buried together all at once, or as they died. The addition of Shanidar Z, also an adult, makes a notable collection either buried together or at different times in the same place (Pomeroy et al. 2020). The Shanidar 4 burial has long been famous as the Neanderthal “flower burial” (Solecki 1975). Pollen analyses of the soil surrounding the burial suggested spring flowers were deposited in quite large quantities, not resulting from windblown action or animal disturbance (though some have argued these were indeed the causes of the pollen in the grave). This would mean that Shanidar 4, an adult male, possibly buried with two younger adults and an infant, was laid to rest and then covered in springtime flowers (Figure 4.8). Study of the soil associated with the recent discovery of an additional Neanderthal associated with this group, mentioned earlier, also suggests that ancient flowers were laid on the grave. Another notable burial is Shanidar 1, an adult male approximately 40–45 years in age, who lived perhaps between 10,000–15,000 years later than Shanidar 4.

60  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 4.8  A rtistic rendering of Neanderthal “flower” burial of Shanidar 4 (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

What is remarkable about Shanidar 1 are the injuries he sustained during a long and difficult life, perhaps as a result of rock fall within a cave (Trinkhaus 1983). Trinkhaus notes “Shanidar 1 was one of the most severely traumatized Pleistocene hominids for whom we have evidence. He suffered multiple fractures involving the cranium, right humerus, and the fifth metatarsal, and the right knee, [and] ankle” (1983: 401). His lower right arm was atrophied and was entirely unusable. Several joints showed degenerative disease resulting from these injuries, and it is unlikely that this individual could walk without help; furthermore, an injury to the left side of his head, perhaps at a different time than those sustained on the right side of his body, left him blind in his left eye. What is remarkable is that this individual survived these injuries, not just by a few weeks, but by years. Certainly, this individual could not hunt or take part in any vigorous daily activities in which Neanderthals must have regularly engaged, and as he became increasingly infirm, he must certainly have required help (Figure 4.9); someone had to provide food for him and perhaps even help him move from place to place and provide warmth in the form of campfires or blankets. Shanidar 1 was not left to die after his injuries but survived them for years while receiving care from fellow Neanderthals. Shanidar 1 is not alone; the

The First Spark of Religion 61

Figure 4.9 A rtist reconstruction of the “Old Man of Shanidar” (drawing by L. D. Hackley).

Old Man of La Chapelle, who was of a similar age, suffered from severe arthritis, possibly limiting his contribution to group survival. Evidence, therefore, teaches us that some of the old and infirm were not left to die but were cared for until, presumably, they died of natural causes. These and other examples of significant injuries requiring care demonstrate Neanderthals were capable of—and willing to give—healthcare and support of the infirm (Spikens et  al. 2018). Such behavior suggests strong social bonds and an understanding of the value of these individuals even if they could not contribute to the economic well-bring of the larger group. These various examples of intentional burials lead us to several avenues of speculation. Specialized treatment of the dead and the depositing of grave goods suggests that Neanderthals may have conceived of something “beyond” death, along the lines of an “afterlife.” Also relevant is the question of why some Neanderthals received such treatment and others did not. At least three burials feature old men who needed assistance: La Chapelle, Shanidar I, and the Kebara Cave male whose cranium was much later carefully removed. Such treatment of these

62  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

individuals possibly suggests that they were important to the living though the reasons why are lost to us. Perhaps their roles as shamans or living (and then dead) ancestral leaders is not beyond the realm of conjecture. Whether specialized treatment of “shamans” or “ancestors” at death herald a belief in an afterlife or rather just respectful handling of important individuals after they cease to exist cannot be determined. The same question applies to the multiple burials at La Ferrassie and Shanidar. Were these kin-related individuals, buried together so that they would be together in whatever comes after? Why did one child at La Ferrassie receive specialized burial, and what meaning did flowers have in Shanidar 4? While the reasons for such actions cannot be confirmed, they do add to the mounting evidence that Neanderthals conducted specialized burials for reasons that smack of ritual symbolism and notions of a world that contained more than just the next meal. Conclusion: Did the Neanderthals Really Have Religion? This chapter has explored the evidence for the first occurrence of religious practice or at least the glimmerings of symbolic thought. None of the evidence is incontrovertible, but there is enough to suggest that modern humans were not the first to contemplate a world beyond just the acquisition of food and procreation. If we accept most of the foregoing evidence, then the Neanderthals cared for the elderly and infirm and may have then engaged in ancestor veneration at the time of their burial. Some individuals, especially young children, were singled out as special, perhaps because they had been chosen as future shamans or leaders. Families were possibly buried together in hopes that they would live united in what came after; others were given symbols of their importance or ancestor status to carry with them to the beyond. Finally, cannibalism occurred, perhaps somewhat regularly, not perhaps to supplement a meager diet but because consuming flesh may have symbolized a victory over an enemy—or possibly for more spiritual reasons when those close to the community died. It is nearly certain that not all of these explanations of Neanderthal behavior are true, but it is almost equally certain that Neanderthals believed in something. However, what the first spark of religion was remains, at present, in the realm of supposition.

Chapter 5

Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges an archaeologist might face is the interpretation of past hunter-gatherer religion. Given that it is quite difficult to even identify hunter-gatherer sites archaeologically, delving into an ancient huntergatherer culture’s belief system would seem nearly impossible. Nonetheless, many archaeologists have taken on this challenge using a variety of methods, including ethnographic data, rock art analysis, and the rare but valuable artifactual remains in sites and burials. This chapter offers an overview of some of the major principles typically found in hunter-gatherer religions, followed by more specific discussion of the possible shape of some of the earliest hunter-gatherer belief systems in Asia and the Americas. Fundamentals of Hunter-Gatherer Religions Over the last half-century, the archaeological (and anthropological) definition of hunter-gatherer societal structure has evolved dramatically from the description of hunter-gatherer cultures consisting of highly mobile small kin-related bands of people that were strictly egalitarian and totally reliant on wild plants and animals. While such cultures did exist, archaeologists now realize that hunter-gatherer societal structures are so diverse that a lengthy handbook was necessary to describe this diversity (Cummings et al. 2014). Archaeologists now recognize cultures identified as “complex hunter-gatherer societies” (Arnold 1996). Complex hunter-gatherer cultures exhibit characteristics more commonly associated with sedentary agriculturally based cultures, such as semi- or wholly sedentary villages, social differentiation, territoriality, and long-distance trade (Arnold et al. 2016; Sassaman 2004). The belief systems of these cultures are, of course, as diverse as their societal structures. Nonetheless, there are some characteristics of hunter-gatherer religions that can be relied upon to exist in some fashion in most of these ancient societies.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-7

64  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture Animism, Totemism, and the Multi-layered Cosmos

E. B. Tylor’s nineteenth century definition of animism (see Chapter 2) as the “original religion,” abandoned by cultures as greater understanding of the “complexity” of the supernatural world was attained, has long been in the anthropological rear-view mirror. Anthropologists today understand animism as a totality of existence: “beings do not simply occupy the world, they inhabit it . . . they contribute to its ever-evolving weave” (Ingold 2006: 14). Religious beliefs based in animism acknowledge a spiritual essence that imbues every living thing and many, if not most, inert things (Harvey 2014; Insoll 2011). This spirituality of beings, including humans, is inextricably interwoven, creating a cosmological network in which balance and harmony is critical to existence. In addition to possessing an animistic worldview, many hunter-gatherer cultures recognize more specific supernatural entities that may be more accurately defined as gods or goddesses (see Chapter 2) than spirits or souls. For instance, the “Sea Woman” Sedna in Inuit cultures presides over the ocean depths and requires special treatment by shamans. The “Rainbow Serpent” in Australian Aboriginal belief systems (see Chapter 6) was central in creating the landscape and is individually depicted in many rock art examples. It is not uncommon for hunter-gatherer cultures to have a totemistic element in their belief systems (see Chapter 2). In this case, certain social or kin-based groups recognize a particular singular or set of (animistic) beings as especially emblematic of that group. The totems or emblems most closely associated with a specific group would likely be considered particularly sacred and perhaps have specialized rituals or other ceremonies associated with them. In many cultures, not just those practicing hunter-gatherer socioeconomies, cosmologies include multiple layers of existence (Eliade 1964; Harvey 2006; Whitley 2014). These layers may be horizontal or vertical or have no real directionality at all but are perceived as omnipresent, with particular places serving as access points. Common entry points include caves, unusual landscape features, high places, springs, or special ritual locations (Steadman 2005). Humans are generally thought to inhabit one of the layers and elements of the supernatural world occupy the others. Humans in many cultures can and do travel to other layers either before or after “death”; in many hunter-gatherer cultures, individuals anthropologists identify as “shamans” are the most skilled at entering nonhuman layers in order to carry out their work on behalf of their people. Shamanism

As Chapter 3 was devoted to the subject of shamans, a detailed description of these practitioners is unnecessary here. What is important to note is that most hunter-gatherer cultures recognize individuals who function as magico-religious practitioners that variously serve their people as healers, problem-solvers, diviners, mediums, and in a variety of other areas (Peoples et al. 2016; Winkelman

Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas 65

2011). Such individuals use varied methods to carry out their duties, including ASC, to enter the multi-layered cosmos and interact with the supernatural world. In some cultures, those that tend more toward the egalitarian, there may be a variety of individuals who serve shamanic roles. In complex hunter-gatherer societies, the number of shamanic practitioners may be more limited, and these individuals may carry higher levels of prestige within their communities. The difficulties of recognizing shamans in the archaeological record were addressed in Chapter 3. Archaeologists most commonly point to rock art images as evidence of shamans in ancient hunter-gatherer cultures. The existence of unusual artifacts that may have served ritual purposes—and which are found in specialized places—are also often ascribed, archaeologically, to shamanic activities. Shamans play a prominent role in maintaining a culture’s religious oral tradition and identifying and preserving sacred spaces on the landscape, both of which are inconvenient activities for archaeologists given their relative invisibility. However, even oral traditions and sacred places can sometimes make their way into the archaeological record. Oral Tradition, Sacred Places, and the Temporal Realm

Oral traditions, the perception of sacred, often spiritually imbued, spaces, and the comprehension of time as other than linear are certainly not limited to cultures that practice a hunting and gathering socioeconomy, but they are quite commonly found within them. While oral traditions may contain critical information, they also present several obstacles to the archaeological pursuit of a culture’s religious belief system. In some cases, archaeologists may use the “direct historical approach” in which they work with living descendants of more ancient cultures who can provide insight to an oral tradition passed down through generations (McNiven 2016). One caveat in this approach is that oral histories may change over time, though recent work suggests that core principles often remain the same (Warren 2021). Another challenge is that different social groups within an ancient culture may have differing access to elements within the oral tradition (Whitley 2014). For instance, a kin group whose totem is the eagle may have more specialized knowledge about the eagle’s origin story than others within the culture. The greatest difficulty for archaeologists emerges when there are no living descendants who might provide insights to elements of the oral tradition. Perceptions of sacred landscapes and a more fluid awareness of the flow of time are very typical elements within hunter-gatherer cultures (Whitley 2014) but are also difficult to capture archaeologically (e.g., Lovis and Whallon 2016). Similar to oral traditions, landscapes may be variably sacred to different groups within a culture. A unique geological feature may elicit elements of ritual activity, as might the bend in a river. The archaeologists might speculate that the entire culture carried out rituals at both locations when, in fact, it was specific and separate groups at each site. Perhaps most challenging for archaeologists is

66  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

to divine an ancient culture’s perception of time. Western temporal perceptions of clear divisions between past, present, and future usually differ quite substantially from hunter-gatherer temporal worldviews that are difficult to grasp by Westerners. Rock art can be an invaluable tool in capturing the essence of some of these perceptions in ancient cultures. Rock Art

Rock art is found on all six of the human-inhabited continents, and while it would certainly be convenient if all hunter-gatherer cultures recorded their religious beliefs as images on stone walls, there are many past societies that expressed their religions in mediums that were not archaeologically preserved. Further, not all rock art persevered through the ages. Nonetheless, the images archaeologists do have access to can often offer invaluable insights into hunter-gatherer religions of the past. In addition to scenes apparently depicting human life, images of unusual ­figures such as therianthropes and anthropomorphs (see Chapter 3) are frequently interpreted as depictions of ritual activity and performance, the latter often by shamans. A detailed analysis of rock art interpretation and hunter-gatherer cultures is found in Chapter 6; some examples are also presented in the sections that follow. Ancient Hunter-Gatherer Religions of North Asia As noted earlier, the archaeological pursuit of ancient hunter-gatherer cultures is one of the most challenging adventures in the discipline. This is particularly true in Northern Asia, in the region today known as Siberia (Figure 5.1), the original homeland of most indigenous populations of the Americas (see the following section). The climate and vast landscape of this northern region makes the identification of Pleistocene period sites extremely difficult, and therefore, little is known of ancient Siberian religion. The majority of evidence for Upper Palaeolithic (ca. 50,000–25,000 bp) hunter-gatherer belief systems from this region is in the form of small artifacts and rock art. Palaeolithic Siberian sites have offered artifacts possibly representing the presence of animism or totemism in the form of small figurines or personal amulets of animals made of flint and other materials (Figure 5.2) (Derevianko et al. 2014; Lbova 2021). Some Upper Palaeolithic rock art in the region also portrays animals, leading to the suggestion that hunter-gatherer beliefs in these early Siberian cultures incorporated totemism, animism, or possibly both (Sarinov 2009). There are a surprising number of rock art images spread across the Siberian landscape; many of these date to periods late in the Palaeolithic or to the following Neolithic period. The distribution of these images suggests that there were core sacred places that may have drawn communities together for ceremonies and events. The geographical setting of these images, including caves, rivers,

Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas 67

Figure 5.1 Map of North Asia and Siberian region where numerous Upper Palaeolithic and Neolithic sites exist along the many river valleys (map by S. R. Steadman).

Figure 5.2 Bone and stone artifacts, possibly serving as amulets, from the Palaeolithic Siberian site of Denisova Cave (Thilo Parg, 2017, CC BY-SA 4.0).

and unusual configurations in the earth, leads one scholar to note that these were “crossroads” locations, “connected with the idea of going from the terrestrial world into a Lower . . . or Upper sphere of the universe” (Devlet 2001: 170). Here, then, is the existence of additional religious fundamentals: the belief in a multi-layered cosmos and a sacred landscape.

68  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 5.3 Petroglyph image from the site of Oglakhty on the Middle Yenisei River in Russia, dating to several thousand years ago. Note that the figure wears a costume with fringe and plays a drum (drawing by S. R. Steadman after Devlet 2001: 47, figure 3.5).

The rock art in Siberia and Central Asia has also offered clues to the existence of shamans in these early communities. Elements such as fringed costumes and ritual performance aids such as drums, documented as regular shamanic equipment in ethnographic studies, are clearly represented on examples of rock art in these regions (Figure 5.3). While many of these rock art images date to recent centuries, some extend back thousands of years to Neolithic periods (prior to 2500 bce) or even earlier (Devlet 2001; Rozwadowski 2017). Given the antiquity of these fundamentals of hunter-gatherer religions in Siberia, it is not surprising to similar elements among the earliest descendant populations of the Americas. Populating the Americas Genetic evidence indicates that, between 20,000–25,000 years ago, the ancestors of Paleoamericans split from Northeast Asian populations to venture eastward toward the American continent (Moreno-Mayar et al. 2018). Archaeological theories for the timing and method of their entry into present-day Alaska and Canada and points southward are varied. The most commonly held theories involve entry via Beringia, a Pleistocene-period land bridge between modern Russia and Alaska (now the Bering Strait). The timing of the passage is related to the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets that covered modern Canada and the northern United States during the Pleistocene (Figure 5.4); during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), roughly 20,000 kya, these effectively blocked entry into the Americas. For decades, archaeologists believed the earliest occupation of North America south of the Canadian ice sheets was the “Clovis Culture,” named

Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas 69

Figure 5.4 Top: Map of “Berengia” showing the land bridge between the Asian continent and Alaska during the Pleistocene. Bottom: Map of North America showing the Pleistocene period ice sheets; arrows show possible routes Paleoamericans may have taken southward sometime after crossing the Bering land bridge (maps by S. R. Steadman).

after the type-site for these beautiful stone tools (Figure 5.5) in New Mexico. Clovis sites date to approximately 13 kya. The gap between the date of the genetic divergence from North Asians and the Clovis culture has led to discussion of what is termed a “Beringian Standstill”

70  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 5.5 Examples of Clovis points recovered in 1807 now in the Cleveland Museum of Natural History (Tim Evanson, 2014, CC BY-SA 2.0).

during which migrants lived, for thousands of years, somewhere on the land bridge or nearby, until passage southward was possible. While this “standstill” is almost certainly fact, arguments over how long it might have lasted range from tens of thousands of years to 8,000 or fewer (Butvit and Terry 2016). The problem with nailing down the standstill gap lies in the fact that most of the sites that would yield critical data rest under the Bering Sea in our post-Pleistocene world. Related to the Beringian Standstill issue is the method of entry into today’s Canada and points south. In general, two migratory methods are proposed. One is via land-based travel through an ice-free corridor, along what is now the Continental Divide, that briefly opened between the two glaciers. The traditional date for this passage is ca. 13,500 kya, thereby suggesting a quite lengthy Berengian Standstill and a peopling of the lower areas of the continent only after this date. Another theory suggests migrants moved southward via a sea route, allowing passage southward at virtually any date including prior to the LGM (e.g., as early as 30,000 kya) or at any time during or after the LGM (Dobson et al. 2021; Potter et al. 2017). These have allowed a plethora of theories regarding the earliest settlement of the Americas to emerge. One long-held model is the “Clovis Dispersal,” which places the earliest entry around 13.5 kya through the ice-free corridor (Hamilton and Buchanan 2010; Meltzer 2009). A  second and somewhat controversial theory suggests that the first entry into North America was well prior to the LGM, earlier than 20,000 kya (Becerra-Valdivia and Higham 2020), and thus likely by the sea route. However, there are significant arguments against this theory, including the lack of a genetic relationship between pre-20,000 Northeast Asian and Native American populations (Potter et al. 2022).

Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas 71

A third theory suggests a pre-Clovis entry at approximately 16,000 kya, based on the earlier presence of sites south of the glaciation and emerging genetic evidence (Potter et al. 2022). One argument against the pre-Clovis model was the lack of a corridor between the ice sheets at this earlier stage, though a sea route could have been used. Recent evidence, however (Clark et al. 2022), suggests that the ice-free corridor may have opened earlier than previously thought, by 16,000 kya, allowing the pre-Clovis model to be a viable and even likely explanation for the earliest entry into the North American continent. Arctic Hunter-Gatherers Though geographically closest to their forebearers in Siberia, the peopling of the Arctic Circle took place thousands of years later than did regions to the south. Between 6000 and 4500 bce, humans began occupying the Arctic region (Figure 5.6). Early cultures in this region, such as the Pre-Dorset (ca. 2500–850 bce), provide a wealth of artifactual material culture but only limited information on their religious traditions (Milne and Park 2016). By the Dorset Culture period (ca. 500 bce to as late as 1500 ce), more data about social structure and religion is available. Around a thousand years ago, a new culture known as the Thule arrived in the Arctic region. The Thule culture preceded the present-day peoples collectively known as the Inuit. Though practicing differing cultural traditions, there was

Figure 5.6 M ap of the Arctic cultural regions and sites discussed in the text (map by S. R. Steadman).

72  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

some overlap between the Dorset and Thule cultures (Friesen 2004), and thus, an overview of Inuit religion may yield some insights into more ancient Arctic huntergatherer religion. Ethnographic work with Inuit populations over the last century describes their animistic belief in “inua,” which can be considered the essence, or spirit, that resides in humans, animals, and inanimate objects and places. Of critical importance to the Inuit were the inua of the animals, the moon (associated with men), and the sea (associated with women). Inuit animism dictates that animals be treated caringly in the hunting process so that their inua will be successfully reincarnated (Vitebsky and Alekseyev 2020). The Inuit also perceive the air/ wind as a particular being known as Silap Inua, which rests at the basis of all life (Merkur 1983). Another supernatural being in the Inuit belief system is the “Sea Woman,” often referred to as Sedna. The mythology of this women tells the story of a daughter ill-fated in love; her father attempted to rescue her from a terrible husband but then sacrificed her to the sea when the husband terrorized their small canoe. The daughter attempted to regain the canoe and her father cut off her fingers to save the boat; these small bits became the animals of the sea, and Sedna sank down to become a dweller at the bottom of the sea (Oosten and Laugrand 2009). Sedna is a powerful figure who can punish those who violate Inuit taboos. The practice of shamanism is common in Inuit cultures, and both men and women can serve as shamans (Oosten 1986) (Figure 5.7). Shamans (sometimes

Figure 5.7 Inuit man and his wife, Higilaq, who was a shaman in the northwest territories of Canada (photo taken in 1916, Canadian Museum of History, CC BY-SA 4.0).

Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas 73

known as “angakut” in some Inuit languages) can see the inua of humans and can also visit Sedna or the “Moon Man,” suggesting they have the ability to transcend a multi-layered cosmos in the Inuit worldview (Merkur 2014). Shamanic services included healing, chasing away evil spirits, ensuring successful hunts, mitigating the weather, and identifying misbehaviors that may have brought on difficulties (Oosten 1986). When carrying out their duties, shamans donned costumes, often in the form of coats or parkas arrayed with designs, frequently with fringe attached that would sway during a shamanic dance (e.g., see DriscollEngelstad 2005). In many ceremonies, they also wore masks that may have represented inua of the cosmos they sought to encounter and the merging of animal/ element with human (Oosten 1992). Finally, Inua also embodies the landscape upon which Arctic cultures reside, making every element around them a sacred space. Some places are particularly powerful, serving as locations for sacrifice to spirits and used by shamans to transverse from one layer to another (Vitebsky and Alekseyev 2020). Arctic peoples build stone cairns known as Inuksuit, sometimes in the form of humans (Figure 5.8), to serve as complex forms of communication, often marking pathways through the landscape and sacred sites (Hallendy 2001).

Figure 5.8 Modern Inuksuit, built at Igloolik Island, where there are Dorset and Pre-Dorset sites (BaShildy, 2008, CC BY 3.0).

74  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

The Dorset culture, divided into Early and Middle (ca. 500 bce–500 ce) and Late (ca. 500–1300 ce) is found in the Arctic regions of northern Canada (Figure 5.6). Originally living in smaller and highly mobile groups in the earlier period, Arctic hunter-gatherers began building larger communal style structures in the Middle Dorset period (Ryan 2016). In the Late Dorset, communities built “longhouses,” some over 40 meters in length; longhouses are located in ecologically rich areas and may be where varying groups congregated for subsistence—and possibly ritual—purposes (Appelt et al. 2016). Dorset peoples hunted land creatures such as caribou but lived near the coast and were harvesters of the sea as well. Archaeological excavation of Dorset Culture sites has revealed artifacts that may be early reflections of hunter-gatherer fundamental religious elements. Artifacts such as animal and human amulets and figurines, “shaman’s tubes,” and “shaman’s teeth” have been recovered from Early and Middle Dorset period sites (Ryan 2016). Many of the animal figurines, which often portray polar bears, but also foxes, fish, and caribou, feature incision that may represent their internal skeletal structure (Figure 5.9). The animal figurines may have been amulets devoted to totemic principles or early versions of inua in the Dorset Culture belief system; figurines suggesting bears swimming or birds flying may have represented a shaman’s or animal’s inua transition from one plane to the next, while the skeleton-like incisions found on animal figurines and well as weapons may have been associated with hunting magic rituals (Fitzhugh and Engelstad 2017; Sutherland 1997, 2001a). The unusual “Shaman’s Tubes” are bell-shaped and hollow, carved from walrus tusks. Initially plain, by the Middle Dorset period, they began to display animal imagery such as bears, walrus, and humans, and by the Late Dorset culture, seals; in one case, a tube displays an image showing a human in mid-transition to a seal (Sutherland 2001b). How Shaman’s Tubes were used is unknown, but their unusual nature strongly suggests they were important items in ritual behavior, perhaps representing a shaman’s spirit helper and/or the shaman’s journey to another plane. “Shaman’s Teeth” are examples of teeth carved from ivory that can be inserted into a human mouth a la “dentures,” creating a visage of having animal teeth similar to that of a wolf or perhaps a bear (Fitzhugh and Engelstad 2017; Sutherland 2001b). Some small carved items appear to be amulets, complete with holes or loops for the insertion of a string. In addition to animals, some of these appear to be “maskettes,” which are depictions of human faces, perhaps symbolizing a full-size (possibly wooden) mask once worn during a ceremony. By the Late Dorset period, even more dramatic examples of ritual activity appear in archaeological sites. Animal figurines/amulets, Shaman’s Tubes, and Shaman’s Teeth continue to be discovered in Late Dorset longhouses and sites. Other items such as batons made of antler depict numerous human and animal faces, perhaps in the act of transitioning from one to the other. Also more common are human figurines clearly showing animal characteristics, such as one example of a female figurine with bear-like or wolf-like ears protruding from

Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas 75

Figure 5.9 Top: Carved polar bear from the Dorset Culture site of d’Alamek in the Igloolik region, Canada ( J.-P. Dalbéra, 2008, Musée du Quai Branly, CC BY-SA 2.0). Bottom: Example of a ritual mask depicting a bear spirit. This mask dates to the 1800s and comes from the Yup’ik culture of western Alaska, just east of the Sugpiak cultural area (Daderot, 2017, public domain).

the top of her head (Sutherland 2001b). Particularly notable are the recovered remains of wooden drums and masks from a site on Bylot Island (Sutherland 1997). The drums were constructed of driftwood and incised with designs such as the skeletal motif mentioned earlier; they were found at a resource-rich coastal location, suggesting the drums and the masks may have been important shamanic elements in Late Dorset rituals associated with subsistence activities (Rast and Wolff 2016), including perhaps appeasing an inua of the sea. Examples of rock art are rare in the Dorset period. Rock art at the site of Qajartalik features a total of 170 carved human and animal-human faces that date to about 1,000 years ago (Fitzhugh and Engelstad 2017). The faces portray

76  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

a variety of characteristics that suggest they marked an important ritual location. Some show humans with horns or other animal-type features; some have open mouths and puffed cheeks suggesting they are singing or blowing (Arsenault 2013). A few human faces have incised lines that may be evidence of tattooing or scarification; similar lines have been found on the maskette amulets. Bodydecoration may have been commonplace among Dorset culture people or perhaps their shamans. In the early centuries of the second millennium ce, a new culture known as the Thule arrived into the Arctic region occupied by the Dorset peoples; these cultures overlapped for some generations and even centuries (Friesen 2020; Mason 2020). The Thule, originating from the “Old Bering Sea” cultures (ca. 400 bce–1300 ce; Mason 2016a, 2016b), were primarily rooted in a whaling-based economy. Many sites in the Pre-Thule and Thule Old Bering Sea cultures reveal artifacts suggesting the presence of shamans and the importance of the animal-human relationship; these include human and animal figurines, many of bears and birds, and carved weapon and tool handles featuring both animals and humans (Bronshtein et al. 2016). Burials at a site in Point Hope, Alaska, dating to approximately 1,500 years, ago offer grave goods such as “maskoids” made of ivory (upon which animal images were then carved) and carved tubes similar to the “Shaman’s Tubes” described earlier (Mason 2009, 2014). The constellation of Old Bering Sea culture artifacts demonstrates strong evidence for belief in the transformative abilities of shamans, including their migration to other planes of existence and a belief in the spiritual essence of animals and humans (Mason 2014). Ethnographic work in Alaska has documented the importance of masks among the Sugpiaq peoples of the Kodiak Archipelago. These masks, worn during important ritual ceremonies, represent the spirits of animals and other entities that make up the Sugpiaq cosmology (Haakanson and Steffian 2009). In some cases, masks also bear “halos” that may signify the different layers of the cosmos inhabited by the spiritual world (see Figure 5.9). The Thule culture that emerged in this region and then migrated eastward carried their beliefs and practices to the region inhabited by the Dorset where they perhaps found similar (though stylistically different) ritual objects, practices, and beliefs. From these archaeological periods come the Arctic zone Inuit cultures of today. The ancient traditions of these earliest Arctic cultures created a foundational belief system still found among indigenous populations in and near the Arctic today. Paleoamerican Hunter-Gatherers The Paleoamerican period (previously known as “Paleoindian”), which includes the earliest settlement in the Pleistocene Americas, begins as early as 16,000 bce and extends to 8,000 bce. This is followed by the Archaic period (ca. 8000– 3000 bce). Paleoamerican sites are found across the North American continent not covered by the Pleistocene glaciation (Figure 5.10), but archaeological evidence for Paleoamerican religious practices is quite sparse. Some of the earliest evidence of ritual behavior is found in the early Paleoamerican period as sites

Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas 77

Figure 5.10 Map of North American Paleoamerican sites discussed in the text (map by S. R. Steadman).

identified as belonging to the Clovis culture (ca. 11,050–10,750 bce). The Clovis cultural assemblage, named after the Clovis site discovered in the early twentieth century, sees the first widespread occupation of North America, with as many as 1,500 sites ranging from Montana to Texas and points further south. The distinctive lithic assemblage (Figure 5.5 earlier) and discovery of Clovis “kill sites” led early archaeologists to designate them primarily as big game hunters of ice age megafauna such as mastodon and bison, perhaps even contributing to their extinction. However, archaeological investigation suggests the Clovis people may have had a more diversified economy, also exploiting smaller prey and relying significantly on gathering plants (Grayson and Meltzer 2002, 2015; Kelly and Todd 1988). The role megafauna played in the Clovis economy, primary or secondary, remains highly contested (Waguespack 2012). One behavior found at Clovis sites that may have had ritual implications is the caching of lithic items. Over 20 sites spread across North America exhibit examples of caches that include anywhere from under ten to over 150 partially and fully worked lithic tools, weapons, and cores (Kilby and Huckell 2014). In one case, at the site of Anzick in Montana, a cache of approximately 100 artifacts was found associated with a human child burial (ca. 10,600 bce); both artifacts and skeletal material had been covered with red ochre (Jennings et al. 2020; Kilby and Huckell 2014). In general, these cached artifacts are unused (and therefore essentially made for deposition into the cache) and well-made (and thus not “mistakes”). In the Paleoamerican periods following the Clovis age, more examples of caching are suggestive of ritual purpose. Two sites in the region of Ontario, Canada, Caradoc, and Crowfield (ca. 8,500–8,000 bce) offer evidence of caching with special treatment. At Caradoc, a cache of 286 intentionally broken chert

78  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

artifacts was discovered; these were reassembled into 62 complete and still viable (prior to breakage) tools (Deller and Ellis 2001). There is no residential or lithic production evidence at Caradoc; it appears that this location was specifically chosen for this tool destruction and caching activity. At Crowfield, a collection of 182 “everyday” stone tools, with use-life still left in them, were deliberately sorted into use categories, were placed in a pit, and were then intentionally burned (Deller et al. 2009). The purpose of these caches is, of course, highly debated. Some scholars argue they are simply “arms caches,” allowing hunters to restock when needed, or simply trash pits. The Anzick cache, among others, leads others to identify a more ritual based intent, including provisioning for the afterlife and making offerings to another realm in a multi-layered cosmos (Ellis 2009; Jennings et al 2020). Other interpretations involve the landscape, speculating that oral history recording notable, possibly sacred, places were then marked with physical caches of important belongings (Gillespie 2007). Finally, the critical importance of stone tools in Paleoamerican cultures may have allowed these inanimate objects to carry spiritual significance within an animistic belief system and may have been part of shamanic rituals (Jennings et al. 2020), associated with hunting, animal management, or community needs. In the later Paleoamerican period and extending into the early Archaic, sites located in the southeastern US, belonging to the “Dalton” culture, yield significantly more information about ritual behavior. The name Dalton comes from one of the early investigators of the region. The cemetery at the Sloan Site (ca. 10,500–10,000 bce) in Arkansas is one of the oldest intentional burial sites in North America (Smallwood et al. 2018). At this site human bones were found buried with over 400 Dalton-type stone tools that had seen minimal or no use; in many cases, both had been sprinkled with red and yellow ochre. Analysis of the burial goods demonstrates that individuals were buried with their own toolkits, sometimes supplemented with additional objects, suggesting that Dalton peoples felt the need for these items in their afterlife. Evidence from the Sloan Site points to a belief in an active afterlife, suggesting a worldview that included a multilayered cosmos and a sense of sacred landscape in the selection of a particular place to see loved ones off to the next plane of existence (Smallwood et al. 2018). At Dust Cave, located in Alabama, archaeologists found a Dalton period Late Paleoamerican cache not of stone tools but of Canadian goose humeri (ca. 8450– 7250 bce). Cut and scrape marks indicate the flesh had been cleaned prior to deposition; it appears that the paired humeri of 12 geese were simultaneously cached inside the cave (Walker 2020). The bones of birds may be used as tools such as needles and also for decorative objects such as beads and for other items such as whistles and pipes; such items may have been used in ritual ceremonies (Walker 2020), possibly by shamans, which may explain the symbolic importance of this cache. The Late Paleoamerican site of Horn Shelter #2 in Texas (ca. 10,200–8,900 bce) offered a fascinating dual burial including an older male and a (probable)

Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas 79

Figure 5.11 A rtistic recreation of the burial of a possible shaman, accompanied by a juvenile, at the Paleoamerican site of Horn Shelter, Texas (drawing by L. D. Hackley).

juvenile female (Figure 5.11). The male burial contained a number of unusual burial goods: A turtle carapace covered his face and near his head and neck were badger claws, hawk talons, perforated coyote teeth, and shell beads (Jodry and Owsley 2014). Another turtle carapace, within which was a tool made from antler, rested under his pelvis; an additional antler tool was located by his hip, perhaps once strung on a belt. Very few items were found with the juvenile; only a bone needle and possibly beads were associated with that burial. The very unusual nature of this discovery has led to speculation that this might represent the burial of a shaman and his toolkit (Jodry and Owsley 2014), demonstrating the presence of this ubiquitous religious practitioner as early as Paleoamerican times. The accompanying juvenile could perhaps have been his child or possibly an apprentice. In the slightly later Archaic period, additional evidence of ritual belief was discovered at Dust Cave. Four burials of domestic dogs were found near a collection of 43 human burials; three of the dog burials had associated items including stone tools and mussel shells (Walker 2020). In life, the dogs had served as pack animals, and the lack of cut marks indicates they were not consumed prior to burial. Few of the human burials had grave goods, though one elderly woman had a hammerstone and a juvenile male was buried with a dog companion (Walker 2020). The intentional human burials suggest the belief in life in another realm. The dog burials, resting near the entrance of the cave, offer several possibilities of religious belief, one being totemism, perhaps explaining the interment of

80  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

human and dog, and the other is the role dogs may have played as guardians in life and therefore in realm of the afterlife. North America is rich in rock art tradition, but dating the installation of the art has been challenging (Gilbreath and Hilderbrandt 2008). The Great Basin region offers thousands of examples of rock art spanning a period from at least 11,000 years ago to the previous century. Rock art dating to the Paleoamerican period is difficult to document, and the majority of examples are of the pecked or engraved type because any painted examples would have disappeared over the extensive span of time (Turpin 2001). There are a number of engraved or pecked images in the Coso Range of the Great Basin region that date to the Paleoamerican period that offer strong evidence of ritual behavior (Middleton et al. 2014; Whitley 2013). Three types of images are common to this region and period: Geometric forms such as spirals, animals (most often bighorn sheep), and anthropomorphs (Figure 5.12). Many of these types of images persist through thousands of years in this region and have led to a number of interpretations, most often involving shamans and various aspects of animal symbolism. The representations of animals are thought by some to be related to aspects of hunting and/or fertility; the images of bighorn sheep, for instance, might have been associated with a ritual ensuring a successful hunt. Alternatively, the representation of sheep may have been related to an “increase ritual,” ensuring that herds remained large and plentiful (Garfinkel 2006; Garfinkel and Austin 2011). In both cases, animals may be assumed to have possessed spirits or essences that the rock art-based images could influence, thereby suggesting an animistic belief system within a multi-layered cosmos.

Figure 5.12 E xample of rock art from the Great Basin. Big horn sheep and human/human-like figures, Anasazi Trail, western Utah (photo by S. R. Steadman).

Hunter-Gatherer Religions in North Asia and the Early Americas 81

The geometric designs and anthropomorphs (Figures 5.12) have been interpreted by many to represent shamanistic activity recorded on the rock faces (Whitley 2000). The geometric designs could signify the entoptic phenomena— or internal visions—experienced by shamans as they descend into trance (LewisWilliams 2002, 2008; see Chapter 3). The anthropomorphs often portray humans with animal characteristics such as talons or with what appear to be associated hunting equipment (Garfinkel 2006); these may represent a shaman with a spirit helper or the transition of the shaman into the spirit-animal. Hunting equipment could be associated with the shaman’s role in ensuring successful hunts, increasing the herd, or representing the shaman’s role as protector and/or healer (Whitley 2000, 2018). The majority of the rock art interpretations offered by scholars rely on the ethnographic record, demonstrating that the images depicted thousands of years ago in many ways reflect the enduring fundamentals of hunter-gather religion across the Americas and beyond. Conclusion The light touch hunter-gatherer cultures leave on the landscape make the study of these most ancient of human cultures an enormous challenge. Using methodologies such as ethnographic analogy, combined with a modicum of cognitive archaeology, allow scholars to attempt a glimpse into the belief systems of these early cultures. The few clues left behind, usually found in the valuable rock art image or the occasional burial, speak to the rich and vibrant belief systems of the earliest peoples to enter North America.

Chapter 6

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia

Some of the most elusive religions to track archaeologically are those practiced by mobile cultures that typically leave behind little in the way of material remains. Rock art is one of the most accessible remnants of ancient hunter-gatherer material culture but also one of the most difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, clues to ancient hunter-gatherer belief systems can be found in the images they left behind. The Archaeology of Rock Art Cave and rock paintings and engravings are very productive areas of religionrelated archaeological research. As the authors in the Handbook of Rock Art Research (Whitley 2001) tell us, one must not start “with the pictures” but rather with the people who made them. The Western view of “art” is that artistic activity is a luxury rather than an integral component of society (Chippendale 2001; LewisWilliams 2002). Western archaeologists must recognize that art was—and is—integral to daily life in many cultures. Successful interpretation of rock art is usually keyed to the particular culture involved, including its environment, and historical circumstances. For instance, images of boats drawn by island cultures may represent origin myths of travels across the sea. Nonetheless, cave and rock art specialists advise caution about over interpretation; when is a hunting scene just a hunting scene and when is it a shamanistic ritual to guarantee the success of future hunts? The first step in interpretation is to ask, as one author puts it, “what is it a picture of?” (Chippendale 2001: 254). You might, based on your understanding of the culture, have already set up classifications for pictorial types such as animal, human, geometric, and so on. The researcher might then ask questions of the art: Is a story or myth being told (?); were components added to the image over time (?); was it repainted repeatedly, perhaps at annual rituals? What must be remembered is that such art is a cognitive product and is, at its most basic, an attempt to express the human consciousness as it struggles to understand a cosmological and physical universe. Keeping that daunting notion at the forefront of all interpretive efforts will certainly lend depth to any archaeological analysis. DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-8

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 83 Dating Rock Art

Dating rock art is difficult because, often, there are no associated sites nearby and the art itself rarely offers datable materials. There has been some success dating rock art using absolute techniques on the pigment: Animal blood, plant fibers or hair (from the paint brush), or charcoal offer radiocarbon dating opportunities (Bruno et al. 2013; Steelman and Rowe 2012). Organic materials in later stratified layers covering the art can provide a terminus ante quem such as that contained in mudwasp nests built over artwork in Australia (Morwood 2002). Naturally laid deposits covering rock art can also yield the terminus ante quem when properly dated. If cultural materials are located near the art, dates from such sites can also be used, though an assumption that there as an association between the two must be made. The art scenes themselves may offer relative dates; an image featuring a covered wagon or a human wearing recognizable dress (such as a soldier’s uniform or a bustled dress), domesticated animals or plants, or other datable activities or objects can usually be placed within a certain period. For instance, rock art depicting extinct animals may give a terminus post quem for the images; Australian rock art depicting the Dingo (indigenous canine), which arrived on the continent about 4,000 years ago, gives a terminus ante quem for these depictions (Aubert 2012). A very productive dating method involves the “patina” that develops on rocks, especially in arid and semi-arid regions (Whitley 2011; Green et al. 2017). To create an engraving, the artist pecks through the existing varnish or paints over it. After the engraving or painting is completed, the patina begins to develop once more, thinner on the art than on the surrounding rock. Actual dating of the varnish using scientific analysis or comparisons with varnish of known date can offer absolute or relative timeframes for the creation of the art. Cultures of the Kalahari The Kalahari Bushmen live in the desert of the same name; the many Bushmen cultures are found scattered across the modern nations of Namibia, Botswana, and South Africa (Figure 6.1). The Bushmen have been known by a number of culture names including Khoisan, primarily referring to their language group, San, a Tswanna word meaning “primitive,” and various ethnic group names such as !Kung. One of the most distinctive aspects of Khoisan languages is the audible click sound that is part of normal speech. The Bushmen are an ancient culture and, in fact, are often referred to as the “First People” of Africa, having lived in the same region and practiced their hunting and gathering lifeway for tens of thousands of years. Unfortunately, the last several decades have seen the Bushmen struggle to retain their lifeways and their lands (Hitchcock and Osborn 2002; Hitchcock and Koperski 2008; Hitchcock et al. 2020).

84  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 6.1 Map showing the location of the Kalahari Desert and Kalahari Bushman cultures (map by S. R. Steadman).

Most archaeologists agree that much of the rock art in South and Southwestern Africa was created by ancestors of the Kalahari Bushmen, though some note that present-day ethnographic data does not guarantee accurate insight into the meaning portrayed in the artwork (e.g., Dederen and Munyai 2021; Le Quellec 2018; Solomon 2013, 2018). However, the numerous apparent correlations between Kalahari Bushmen beliefs and the rock art images in their homeland allows for some speculative interpretations. The following describes the Kalahari Bushman traditional culture, largely prior to present-day influence and pressure, based on ethnographies from decades ago. They are traditionally mobile hunters and gatherers, living in small kin-related bands of anywhere from 15 to 50 individuals (Figure 6.2). Their movements across the landscape follow a seasonal cycle that roughly corresponds to the path they followed in previous years. In general, these movements are dictated by the “rainy” versus “dry” season; bands either disperse more widely or aggregate more closely depending on water availability (Kent 1992). In this way, a group becomes associated with a particular territory, although there is no sense of “ownership” of that territory—just familiarity and association with it (Lee 1984). Bushmen males are renowned hunters and hunt in a cooperative group (Figure 6.3). Small game is often hunted with traps; for larger game bow hunting is the norm. Bushmen hunters are superb trackers and possess terrific physical endurance. Arrows tips are dipped in a slow-acting poison that may not bring the animal down for hours or even days. Not only must the Bushman track the animal as it flees but he must eventually butcher it and carry it back to camp

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 85

Figure 6.2 Top: Drawing of a Kalahari Bushmen encampment created in 1893 (drawing by Élisee Reclus, public domain). Bottom: Photo of Kua Bushmen camp in the eastern Kalahari, taken in 1976. Women grind maize in a mortar and remove skin from a donkey head in front of a hut (photo courtesy of Robert Hitchcock).

86  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 6.3  P hoto of hunters in the central Kalahari, taken in 1962 (photo source, George Silberbauer, courtesy of Robert Hitchcock).

which may be some distance away. All parts of prey are used: Bones make tools, skins and internal organs are used for clothing, bags, and blankets. Typical prey includes zebras, giraffes, deer and antelope, and smaller creatures such as porcupines, hares, tortoises, and snakes. Bushmen whose territory includes rivers will regularly exploit fish as well. The majority of the Bushmen diet consists of plants gathered by the women, although, if an opportunity presents itself, a woman will also trap or snare a small animal. Bushmen women collect over 100 different types of plant products, including nuts, fruits, tubers, and roots. They use a digging stick to help with extracting deeply buried plants and carry everything, children included, in their kaross (animal skin bag). The Bushmen are more-or-less egalitarian when it comes to group or bandwide decisions (versus individual decision-making within a nuclear family group). Perhaps the best word to use to describe the decision-making process is “consensus.” What is important to understand is that there is no single leader who can make decisions for the group, regardless of the opinion of others. Though there may be a “headman” or “headwoman” in the band, this is generally an honorary title given either to the eldest member—or perhaps to members of

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 87

the family most closely associated with the region in which the band hunts and gathers. With regard to the sharing of resources, the Bushmen are scrupulously careful about the equal distribution of hunted and gathered foods and the sharing of tools and necessary goods. The Bushman kinship system can be considered “universal” in the sense that everyone is classified as some type of relative, whether blood-related or not. When Richard Lee (1984), an anthropologist who studied the Dobe!Kung Bushmen, finally received his “name” and thus entered the kinship system, he instantly possessed relatives, including fathers, mothers, and even wives! Bushmen kinship consists of two basic categories—“joking kin” and “avoidance kin”—that dictate all social relationships, the selection of marriage partners, and social group. Joking kin have a more easy-going and natural relationship; it includes grandparents and grandchildren, spouse and spousal relatives (with some exceptions), and the individual’s siblings and some cousins. Those in the “avoidance” category include parents and children, those who are classified as parents (such as aunts and uncles), and some in-laws such as the mother of one’s spouse. There are formal rules of behavior for avoidance kin that reinforce lines of respect between individuals who live in an egalitarian society. The collective religions of the Kalahari Bushmen cultures are one important key to interpreting the rock art of the region. All Bushmen cultures have a strong tie to their environment and the plants and animals within it that can be understood as a type of animism. Many Bushmen cultures believe in a supreme being who was responsible for creation, though his nature and his role in daily life differs somewhat across the cultures. In some cases, the supreme being is male and he has a consort or wife; in others, he is dual-gendered. Some believe he is purely good, locked in combat with evil forces, while others believe he represents both good and evil, alternatively helping and harming humans. A second deity, usually created by the supreme deity, also acts upon Bushmen lives. Some Bushmen groups identify this deity as /Kaggen, sometimes associated with the praying mantis, and often credited with creation of various things such as the moon and the eland—a large antelope that is a common actor in Bushmen mythology (Vinnicombe 1976). In other Bushmen groups there is a deity called /oa, who is a trickster and does not always have the best interests of the Bushmen at heart (Heinz 1975). Common among Bushmen groups are initiation ceremonies for both males and females and a ritual specifically for healing purposes called the “medicine dance” or “trance dance.” In the male initiation ritual, the process culminates with the boy’s successful hunt of a large animal in order to achieve full adulthood. At their first menstruation, girls are isolated and women relatives perform the “Eland Dance,” where they imitate this animal’s mating behavior. The eland also appears in the marriage ritual during which the groom gives eland meat to the bride’s parents and the bride is later adorned with fat from the eland. Illness is thought to result from a spirit shooting invisible poisonous arrows into the victim. It can also be caused by the trickster deity. The trance dance

88  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

performed by the Ju/’hoan (!Kung) Bushmen has the dual purpose of healing the victim by drawing the arrows out as well as discovering the reason for the illness in the first place. The ritual may start at any time (Hitchcock 2019); a group of Bushmen shaman gather around a fire and begin to clap and sing to musical accompaniment (Figure 6.4). Those who are shamans, usually males and some elder women, begin to dance in a circle around a fire. They dance for hours until they fall into an altered state of consciousness that ignites the healing medicine, known as n/um. This boils in their stomach and moves upward to their head, causing great pain as it does so (Katz 1982). Shamans frequently experience stomach cramps as the n/um activates. Another common side-effect is bleeding from the nose when they enter the trance, perhaps a result of changes in blood pressure as the shamans’ bodily functions alter. When n/um is activated, the healers then lay hands on the patient(s) and draw out the poisonous arrows (Hitchcock 2019); shamans’ souls can also leave their bodies and travel to the spirit world to try and discover the reason for the attack on the victim. Only very skilled shamans attempt this journey, as it is believed that the soul might become lost and never return. One enters the spirit world layer through holes in the ground or through pools of water into which the shaman’s spirit travels (Dowson 1998a); there, the reason for the illness may be discovered. Besides those who are obviously ill, the healers may lay hands on others sitting in the circle to bring well-being to their souls. Although anyone may become a shaman, some are considered more skilled than others and these

Figure 6.4 P hoto of a Tshwa trance healer in Manxotae, Botswana, taken in 1976 during a “trance dance” with women clapping behind the healer (photo courtesy of Robert Hitchcock).

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 89

achieve an element of renown. While the trance dance is one of the main methods used for healing, the Bushmen, particularly women, also have a deep knowledge of the healing properties of plants and make use of a variety of herbs and potions to treat all sorts of ailments. In Bushman cultures, there are generally three categories of shamans: Healers such as those already described, shamans of the game, and rain-making shamans, all of whom use the trance dance in their work. Some believe that very powerful shamans have the ability to turn themselves into animals, essentially into what might be considered their “familiars” or representatives in the spirit world. Like all cultures, the Bushmen have a rich cosmology, with myths explaining the universe. Many of the myths involve the trickster deity and his exploits. Original creation, illness, and death are attributed to the supreme being. Places that are cool and water-filled such as caves, pools of water, and holes in the ground are considered the entrance place to the spirit world (Dowson 1998a) and so such places should be approached with extreme care. The rainmaking ritual takes several forms, but all include a “rain animal.” According to informants, the animal can be a hippopotamus but the eland is considered the most powerful rainmaker. Snakes, because of their close association with water, may also be rain creatures. One method to induce rain is to capture a powerful rain animal while it is at the watering hole, then lead it to the area where rain is needed. Slaughtering the animal there and letting its blood fall to the ground will bring rain; however, it is unclear from ethnographic accounts of this ritual whether the action takes place on the earthly plane, physically carried out by a shaman, or on the spiritual plane and accomplished by the shaman’s spirit or familiar. Southern African Rock Art Rock art images have been found across the breadth of Southern Africa, either painted on the rock face or engraved into it. Engraved images have a longer lifespan, but the painted art is more ubiquitous. Earth tone colors such as dark red, white, black, brown, and orange, are the norm. White is sometimes used to represent magical substances such as the n/um in the shaman’s body as well as to depict lines emanating from an entranced shaman, showing his spirit leaving his body bound for the spirit world. Red often indicates blood, while black, orange, red, and various shades of brown are used for the bodies of animals, humans, therianthropes, and anthropomorphs, with light reds and pinks indicating color variations. The images depicted show great skill and an eye for depth perception and overall scene setting. Without a doubt, the Bushman rock art is reflective of their culture and environment. Some scenes show events of everyday life. In others, a more nuanced interpretation may offer insight into Bushman religious belief and ritual (LewisWilliams and Pearce 2012, 2015; Thornton 2020). Actions depicted are often

90  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

undertaken in order to put the environment to rights in a world where rain and meat are sometimes too scarce. Bushman rock art is an ideal example of the intersection between culture, religion, and environment. Much of the rock art remains undated; some examples have been tentatively dated to over 25,000 years ago, though many were likely created in the last several millennia and even within the last 500 years (Solomon 1998; Dowson 1998b). Rock Art Images of the Kalahari

There are thousands of examples of rock art in Southern Africa (Hitchcock 2019). While many of these have been interpreted as representing various aspects of Bushman cosmology and shamanic activities, other scenes may simply display everyday activities such as food acquisition. Depictions show women with digging sticks and a kaross heading out in groups or alone, or squatting to dig up a root plant. Images of men engaged in hunting show every stage of the hunting cycle, including groups heading out on the hunt, the approach to the animal, and the toting of the kill back to camp (Vinnicombe 1976). Some scenes show groups of men running with their bows, perhaps chasing an animal that has been hit with a poisoned arrow. A few examples appear to depict the butchering process as well. Fishing scenes are also found near rivers. Such images are, without much doubt, depictions of the daily lives and activities of the ancient Bushmen of the region. A few scenes in which a single hunter successfully brings down a large animal may represent the “first kill” manhood initiation rite of young Bushmen males. The young man’s triumph, in this case, is forever commemorated on the rock face for all to see. Other depictions appear to take a step beyond routine activities into the realm of religion and ritual. A strong (but not unanimous) consensus among rock art scholars is that many scenes represent shamanistic activities, the most frequent of which is the process of rainmaking. In these scenes, a “rain animal” has been captured and a human (shaman?) leads it by a rope. Often the rain animal is an eland, an animal thought to have much magical power, but other animals appear in such scenes as well. The animal frequently appears to be bleeding. In Figure 6.5, the “rain animal” (eland, bull?) is led by a thong or rope, while the spray of paint emanating from the animal suggests liquid flying off its hide (sweat, water, or possibly blood). Scenes also suggest that the shaman has “tamed” the wild animal needed for the ritual (McGranaghan and Challis 2016), allowing it to be led to the place where rain is most crucially needed; the majority of its blood will be let there by the rain-making shaman, who may be male or female (Tedlock 2005). A second category of depictions shows people in attitudes of dance. These images seem to portray the trance dance ceremony, probably for healing purposes (Figure 6.6). Sometimes, the dancers have lines extending from their noses, which likely indicates the nose-bleeds so common when entering the trance.

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 91

Figure 6.5 Top: Rock art showing people leading an animal (possible a “rain eland”) by rope shown by the dotted line at top (photo courtesy of D. Whitley). Bottom: Drawing of a rock painting from the Drakensberg region showing people leading a “rain bull” by a rope or thong; marks surrounding the animal and humans could represent sweat or blood (drawing by L. D. Hackley, after Vinnicombe 1976: figure 240).

Occasionally, dancers are shown bending over in attitudes of pain, demonstrating the activation of the n/um. In some scenes, the dancers also have white-painted lines extending upward from their heads. These could depict the shaman’s spirit leaving his body for the spirit world; sometimes an animal or therianthropic ­figure is shown in the background, possibly representing the shaman’s spirit form as it enters the spirit world. One example (Figure 6.7) shows a figure with human legs but animal torso and head. The depiction here likely represents the shaman’s journey in his spirit form and his triumph over the eland. Other drawings show humans with animal characteristics that may represent costuming. Men with antelope (probably rhebok) horns or ears may be “game shamans,” responsible

92  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 6.6 E xample of a trance dance painted on a rock face in the southern Drakensberg region. The figures are bent over, possibly expressing pain, liquid (blood?) runs from their noses, and white dots arrayed around them represents sweat flying off their bodies (drawing by L. D. Hackley, based on Lewis-Williams 2006: 365, figure 3).

Figure 6.7 A   therianthrope (sketch by S. R. Steadman based on photo of the Willem’s Shelter painting, courtesy of David Whitley).

for making game available to the hunters. While entering the trance, the game shaman dons costuming of the animal he intends to lure to the hunting arena (Challis 2005). Without knowledge of present-day Bushman religion and ritual, the rich meanings of the rock art images would certainly be lost to us. One other interesting set of images include geometric images, dots, zigzags, grids, and curvy lines. Many scholars, including Lewis-Williams, believe these

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 93

geometric figures are images seen by shamans entering a trance. In the neuropsychological model discussed in Chapter 4, this is a process known as entropy. In the first, or “lightest,” stage of entering a trance, all humans visualize geometric images (Lewis-Williams 2002, 2008). The second stage of the entropic process, which Lewis-Williams calls “construal,” is to interpret these images. Thus, since every culture has different symbolisms, environments, and experiences, these images are variously interpreted by informants. In Southern African construal, circles can represent the holes though which one enters the spirit world; zigzags might represent a zebra or zebra-like creature present in the spirit world; crescent-shaped lines with associated dots are often interpreted as beehives. The neuropsychological model, combined with ethnographic data, is an invaluable interpretive tool for understanding Bushmen rock art. Though the nuanced messages these paintings were meant to impart may be lost, ethnographically-based insight drawn from Bushman religion and ritual offers numerous clues. Many images appear to represent the shamanistic journey in a trance state, including the beings encountered, the actions undertaken, and the shaman’s own spiritual form. Various lines of evidence suggest these paintings were visited, touched, added to, and perhaps served as the sites of additional shamanistic journeys (Lewis-Williams 2001). The rock “art” in Southern Africa is indeed art, but it also a crucial key to unlocking the rich ritual behaviors and religious beliefs of the ancient inhabitants of this region. Aboriginal Cultures of Australia The original inhabitants of Australia, collectively known as Aboriginals, arrived on the northern mainland by at least 50,000 years ago (Bird et al. 2019; O’Connell et al. 2018) and possibly earlier (Hiscock 2014). No land bridge to Asia has existed for millions of years, but during the Pleistocene epoch, sea levels dropped, creating a land mass stretching from Tasmania in the south to New Guinea in the north. This continent is known as Sahul (Figure 6.8). Sahul was separated from the enlarged Asian continent (called Sunda) by only 50 kilometers of open water. The first inhabitants probably came in small groups, either intentionally or as a result of unexpected currents or inclement weather that made a short inter-island trip an unwanted adventure to a new land. The site of Madjedbebe Malakunanja in Arnem Land (Northern Territory) offers evidence of arrival on the continent, possibly around 65,000  years ago (Clarkson et al. 2017; Florin et al. 2020). From here, residents headed in various directions, including southward, where the Lake Mungo site in New South Wales provides a glimpse into Aboriginal ritual behavior. The earliest settlement at Lake Mungo, now a dry lake, dates to as early as 50,000 years ago (Bellwood 2013; Bowler et al. 2003) and featured a number of hearths where people cooked meals and made stone tools. Two burials of a male and female, dating to ca. 30,000 bp, received specialized treatment. The male was laid on his side with

94  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 6.8 M ap of sites and areas discussed in chapter, and area of Sahul and Sunda (map by S. R. Steadman).

clasped hands; ochre was sprinkled over his body, staining the soil around him pink and eventually his bones as well. The female was first cremated and then her bones were smashed. Her remains were then buried in a small pit (Flood 1983). It is probable that these burials were not unique, but the difficult climatic conditions of the Lake Mungo region do not preserve organic remains well. The possible ritual activity represented at Lake Mungo 30,000  years ago may be

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 95

representative of some symbolic beliefs found in the complex belief systems of Aboriginal Australia today. Aboriginal Social Structure

At the time of European arrival, there were roughly 250 different, mutually unintelligible, languages spoken in Australia, each with several or more dialects (Koch 2007). Although nearly all these stem from the same language family known as “Proto Australian,” separation of culture groups made these linguistic structures quite distinct. As many as a thousand distinct cultures may have existed in pre-contact Australia. Using ethnographic data, the traditional cultural patterns of pre-contact Aboriginal Australia are described here. The ecosystems in Australia include desert, tropical coast, rainforest, alpine mountains, and open scrub. Though all Aboriginal cultures practiced hunting and gathering, the ecological diversity meant that different subsistence practices ranged from extensive fishing on the coast to large game hunting (kangaroos, emus) in the interior, substantially supplemented by plants and insects. Aboriginal peoples have intimate knowledge of the landscape and everything in it, allowing them rich and satisfying diets. Men and women tend to collect food in family groups. Though they might come together with other family groups (some probably kin related) to camp at day’s end, food is generally consumed by each individual family rather than shared among the entire collection of people. Most hunting is carried out by the men, though women sometimes bring home game if such is acquired. Traditionally, the main hunting weapons were the spear and the club, which were also used in warfare. Aboriginals made extensive use of spear throwers, which allowed far greater distance as well as accuracy in their hunting. The other weapon, now famous to most of the world, was the “boomerang,” a throwing stick that requires much skill to throw accurately. The most famous boomerang is the one shaped like the wings of an airplane. This is known as the “returning” boomerang and, if thrown properly, will fly in a high circle and return to the thrower. This is used in games but might also be thrown to bring down a bird. More common in hunting is the “non-returning,” or hunting, boomerang, which is not symmetrical but looks more like a capital “L” with the short leg angled upward by a few degrees; the hunting boomerang also functions as a weapon in combat. The majority of the Aboriginal diet comes from plant foods gathered by the women who have been called the “chief breadwinners” for the group and family (Berndt and Berndt 1983: 66). A day of gathering might also net a small animal or eggs, thereby providing protein in the diet as well. On their gathering expeditions, women carry digging sticks, and wooden bowls, net bags and/or baskets to collect food. As is the case with many foraging societies, the Aboriginals were traditionally highly nomadic (limited today due to development), building branch huts

96  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

mainly for storage of their foods and belongings, and perhaps a bit of daytime shade for children. They are careful land managers and take pains not to overhunt or deplete the landscape in any way. For instance, the honey ants in central Australia store honeydew in their abdomens, creating a pea-sized sack of nectar. Women dig down for these ants’ nests and then remove the sack from the ants but leave the insects alive because the sack will develop once again. In the more temperate and tropical regions in the north and along the western coasts, where freshwater rivers and lakes can be found, water is in regular supply. However, in the arid center and east, intimate knowledge of the location of water holes is an essential component of Aboriginal survival. Though the surface may be dry, digging down a meter or so often reveals a source of water. Aboriginals will examine the landscape for signs of where animals have dug down and follow suit in the same place, using their intimate knowledge of the animal kingdom for their own survival as well. The hundreds of Aboriginal cultures are mainly defined by their language, territory, and social ties of kinship and clan (Dousset 2011; McConvell et al. 2018). Kinship groups are unilineal, with some cultures practicing patrilineal descent and some matrilineal; a few use both systems but children belong only to one descent group. The choice of marriage partners is carefully monitored to avoid incest in what are essentially very small communities. For this reason, marriages are usually arranged by the family. Another important aspect of Aboriginal social structure is their belief in totemic ancestors. Aboriginal totemism rests on the principle that all life is connected spiritually. Totems are drawn from all the plant and animal life in Australia as well as important natural features such as lightening, water, clouds, and so on. Individuals may have links with several totems; they acquire their links by virtue of their kinship relationships and other factors (Berndt and Berndt 1983). For instance, when a woman becomes pregnant, the child immediately acquires the totemic relationship with whatever ancestral being is associated with the place where she first realized her pregnancy. Totemic beings associated with the sacred sites in a group’s landscape are worshiped as well. Australian Aboriginals practice their religion in an all-encompassing manner (Berndt and Berndt 1983: 60): For Aborigines in any given region, religious commitment was something that involved the whole community. Everyone was caught up in it, actively, or passively, not only from birth but from the moment of conception, or even before that in one mode of reckoning. Traditionally, nobody could opt out. When sacred rituals were to be carried out, everyone was involved (usually excluding children). If a ritual took place at a site sacred to one part of the kin group (for instance, at the emu totem), then those who were most closely associated with that ancestor led the ceremony; at the kangaroo ritual, the following

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 97

month others were the leaders. Some locations were for “women’s business” only and thus could not be visited by men—and vice versa. At many places, the sacred stories associated with the site were known only to those who were initiated there and belonged to that totem; these stories were passed on to initiates at the time of their rite of passage but were not bandied about at general story-telling sessions. They were secret and sacred knowledge of the select few associated with that place. Dreamtime and Religion

The Aboriginal religion, awkwardly translated as “Dreamtime,” or “The Dreaming,” encompasses dimensions of time, space, locality, and kinship; it is the time when all landscape was created by the supernatural beings (Dousset 2011). Aboriginal understanding of time is not linear but rather transcendent; an event that happened in the past, such as the creation of the landscape, is also viewed as happening now and in the future (Stanner 1987). One scholar (David 2002: 17) defines Dreamtime as an understanding and explanation of the world and how it works, a moral code, law and love. It relates to the creation of the world, to a timeless past when ‘people’ and ‘animals’ and all things animate and inanimate were more or less free to wander the cosmos and act, not having yet attained their defining features. But it is also a time when these defining features were obtained. Ancestral beings were responsible for the creation of the landscape and the creatures in it. There is a Dreamtime myth for every aspect of this creation, explaining how and why it happened and how it links Aboriginals, specific animals, and places together. One way to visualize these myths is as “tracks.” As the ancestral beings moved across the landscape, they created places such as trees, water holes, and rock formations; their mythic events became recorded in Dreamtime stories that formed tracks or songlines across the territory of one kin group and often into that of the next. Thus, the landscape exists in the mind as a mental map of lines and places that make up the past, present, and future of human experience. A woman sitting on a rock rests on a piece of her ancestor or totem, a location where some important part of the Dreamtime associated with her kin group occurred (Lawlor 1991). Sacred places are found at nearly every natural setting or geographical feature, as small as a pool of water or as large as Uluru in central Australia (Figure 6.9). Because individuals are associated with several totems, they travel across the landscape with a mental map. This map provides a network of sacred places and the Dreamtime stories that explain their creation, important events, and interand intra-kin relationships, but the map grows fuzzier the further they range from

98  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 6.9 Uluru monolith in the “Red Center” of the northern territory state in central Australia (photo by S. R. Steadman).

their ancestral land. Myths are passed down within clans orally through song and recitation and through rock art. If a clan dies out or is unable to live in their territories (as has happened since the European colonization of Australia), these stories of Dreamtime are lost, as are the specific explanations of the rock art images found in those sacred places. As noted earlier, everyone except uninitiated children participates in Dreamtime rituals and ceremonies. Aboriginal male and female shamans perform many services for their people; female shamans most often serve as midwives and healers (Tedlock 2005). Men trained as apprentices undergo more severe initiation rites to gain status as specialists in their communities (Elkin 1977). They can be called on to perform a number of services including healing, especially if the sickness was thought to have been caused by sorcery; they are also capable of mind reading, predicting future events, and divination such as seeking out the soul of a murder victim to identify the killer (Elkin 1977). Embedded in Aboriginal life and Dreamtime are other rituals marking important points in the life cycle and the reenactment of Dreamtime stories; they also serve to maintain the natural world and ecological balance. Rituals performed to re-enact actions of totemic ancestors take place at sites sacred to these beings; rituals may celebrate important events such as the very creation of a place, a battle there, or even the totem’s death. Ceremonies may include the recitation of songs or stories recounting the events; if rock art is associated with the site, re-paintings might also be important components. Many rituals include initiation rites that mark the passage in the life cycle from one stage to the next. Another ceremony is known as an “increase ritual,” though one scholar notes this is a bit of a “misnomer” (Stanner 1998) because they are really intended to maintain an ecological balance rather than “increase” the animal or plant population; he suggests that “maintenance rites” are a better name for these rituals. Such events take place at Dreamtime locales sacred to the target of the ritual (i.e., animals such as kangaroo or elements such as water). All of these ritual practices may have been expressed in the rock art found across the continent.

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 99

Australian Stone Monuments and Rock Art The immensity of the Australian landmass and its diverse ecosystems offer a vast quantity of rock art for study. The following offers only a sampling of how knowledge of Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime may aid in understanding elements of the thousands of examples of rock art spread across the continent. Sacred Landmarks

It is hardly surprising that a culture as spiritually oriented as Australia’s indigenous peoples would find the beauty and otherworldly land formations across Australia to be sacred places. The scarcity of water in vast regions of Australia adds to the need to be intimately familiar with the earth and its secrets. Some of the most dramatic land formations reside in the “Red Center” in the Northern Territory, surrounding the modern city of Alice Springs, the largest modern settlement in the state. The area is known as the Red Center because of the brick red color of the earth due to large amounts of iron in the soil. However, nearly every landscape feature across the breadth of Australia has a Dreamtime story associated with it. For instance, Dreamtime stories explain that the mountains and river valley known as the Flinders Range in Southern Australia were created by a large snake known as Akurra who was thirsty and drank all the water in a lake. His distended belly carved out a river valley and, everywhere he stopped, he created water holes (Tunbridge 1998). The waterholes and valley created by Akurra are sacred to the Adnyamathanha culture in this region and certain areas belong to various clans of the Adnyamathanha. More intimate details of Akurra’s exploits are known only to adult men and women of those clans, passed down to the next generation at appropriate points in initiation rites of passage. Another place, known as Coroboree, near Alice Springs (Figure 6.10), offers a similar example, this one from the Arrernte culture. Dreamtime stories explain that Coroboree, meaning “meeting place,” was created by a perentie, a large, monitor-type lizard that can grow to six or more feet in length. It is an important site for Arrernte men’s initiation rites. At different points around Coroboree, a boy will have his tooth knocked out, be circumcised, and have his thigh cut by a spear. This entire process, in traditional times, took weeks. During these days and nights, the boy was instructed by his mentor in Dreamtime mythology, warfare methods, hunting techniques, marriage, and everything else he needed to know in order to survive in the challenging landscape of central Australia. The most famous natural monument in Australia is the massive monolith known as Uluru (Figure 6.9) in the Red Center. This single sandstone rock, which rises approximately 1 kilometer above ground and extends as much as 5 kilometers below, rests at an intersection of several Dreamtime tracks across the landscape. The rock itself extends across the territory of several kin groups, collectively known as the Anangu. Stories in the Anangu culture’s Dreamtime tell

100  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 6.10 Coroboree rock near Alice Springs (photo by S. R. Steadman).

of the creation of the land, how all the plants, animals, and humans came to be, and hand down law and custom for the Anangu (Layton 2001). Some of the rock paintings at Uluru recount Dreamtime stories that explain natural landmarks. The story of Kuniya Woman is associated with a gorge on the south side of Uluru. Kuniya Woman, a python, was traveling with her nephew to Uluru, carrying her eggs on her head. At the east end of Uluru, they were attacked by the Liru people (poisonous snakes) and Kuniya Woman’s nephew was killed. Later on, she engaged a Liru warrior in battle on the south side of Uluru. In the gorge where the battle took place are two natural black marks on the east side rock face, which the Anangu say depict the two snakes in battle. On the west face are two natural linear gouges that represent Kuniya Woman’s skillful and powerful attack on the Liru, where she lunged with her weapon and struck the rock. The “Hunter’s” rock shelter near the mouth of this gorge displays a panoply of rock art (Figure 6.11), some of which certainly tells elements of this myth. These linked concentric circles are thought to portray either Kuniya Woman’s journey or perhaps the eggs she carried (Layton 1992). The lesson of the Kuniya Woman story is that the archaeologist seeking the sacred past must look not just at what is excavated, painted, or engraved but at what occurs naturally as well. Without the oral tradition of the Anangu, we would never be able to interpret the black marks and gouges on the walls of the gorge. The presence of the art in a nearby rock shelter bearing images similar to those occurring naturally should alert us not just to the importance of the rock shelter but of the entire landscape. Religious belief comprises not just the painted or engraved image but also the myriad physical, spiritual, and symbolic components it represents. Rock Art Styles and Motifs

The three main methods of rock art decoration in Australia are stencils, engravings, and paintings. While engravings are often quite ancient, evidence suggests some of the earliest art, created soon after arrival in Australia 50,000 years ago, was painted on rock walls in Western Australia (Flood 2013). Stencils, which usually depict hands, are quite common: The hand is placed on the rock face

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 101

Figure 6.11 Rock paintings at Hunter’s Cave near Uluru in the northern territory state (photo by S. R. Steadman).

and then the ochre-based paint is blown onto the rock face and hand, leaving the hand image on the bare rock surrounded by red paint. These may serve as an artist’s “signature” or simply note that someone visited the location (Flood 2013). The earliest engraved art, which employed a pecking method, is known as the Panaramitee style. Images of animal tracks make up approximately twothirds of the Panaramitee style, and geometric forms comprise the other third (Morwood 2002). Rock art in what is called the “Simple Figurative Style” may have developed after the Panaramitee style and includes both engravings and paintings. These are images produced in a naturalistic style. Humans are rendered frontally and animals, from the side or from the perspective of viewing from above (Morwood 2002). Simple Figurative Style seems to be the most common around the edges of the continent, with the majority occurring near Sydney and the Cape York region. A painting style known as the “Complex Figurative Style” is likely the most recent of the rock art forms and is found mainly in Northwestern Australia, in the Arnhem Land and Kimberley regions. The Complex Figurative includes fascinating images that are neither human nor animal but rather are beings from Dreamtime. Within the Complex Figurative images are more particular style names unique to certain regions. The “Mimi” style in Arnhem Land features small figures, usually red, in naturalistic poses or appearing to move across the landscape. In the Kimberley region, a set of paintings in the Gwion Style show humans in what is probably ceremonial dress and attitudes of dance. Rock Art and Dreamtime The inhabitants of each area in Australia produced unique images and styles, corresponding to their particular Dreamtime tracks. Some art is considered “public”

102  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

and can be viewed by anyone, including children and the uninitiated (Morwood 2002), such as that at the Uluru Hunter’s Rock Shelter, so-called because hunters created rock art while waiting for game exiting from a water hole in the gorge. The subjects portrayed were a mix of “doodles” and public Dreamtime stories, such as that of Kuniya Woman, told to children before they are initiated. The majority of Aboriginal art was placed in locations sacred to individual clans and kin groups and portrays elements of important Dreamtime tracks. The following section surveys the art found in various regions; in some cases, descendant cultures offer clues to interpretation and in others interpretation comes from the realm of informed archaeological conjecture. The Arid Regions: The Pilbara Coastal Region, Western Australia, and The Red Center

The majority of engraved art is found in the arid western and central areas of Australia. Given the antiquity of many of these images, some as much as 40,000 years old, their meaning is quite a challenge to accurately interpret. Members of descendant Aboriginal communities have been consulted about many of the images. Sometimes, the response is that it was created in and by Dreamtime beings. In other cases, common shapes, such as concentric circles, might be identified as either portraying a meeting place or a water hole depending on the region. Identifying which art is meant as real-time messaging (“the water hole is that way”) and which relates to religion/Dreamtime, is a consistent challenge for archaeologists. Perhaps some of the most striking engraved art represents human figures. Anthropomorphic images in the Pilbara region, near the Western Australian coast, feature human-like figures in a number of poses, many holding various items such as axes, boomerangs, or dance wands; some also wear headdresses (Mulvaney 2013). Archaeologists have noted that some of the items held by these anthropomorphs—and the attitudes of dance—are reminiscent of ceremonies and rituals performed by Aboriginal peoples in recent history (Mulvaney 2013). Other anthropomorphs (Figure 6.12) portray women, sometimes appearing to be in the midst of menstruation or clearly pregnant, while others show males with an exaggerated penis (McDonald 2012). The similarities to present-day Aboriginal rituals demonstrates the antiquity of their belief system and adherence to ancient Dreamtime tracks across the landscape. The anthropomorphs displaying anatomical features, including pregnancy, might also depict Dreamtime stories associated with the creation of humans or perhaps represent male and/or female initiation rites. The time it took artists to engrave such images suggests their portrayal was important, though precisely what they depicted may forever be hidden within ancient Dreaming mythology. Another human representation is found in a type of engraved art known as “archaic faces.” These are stylized human faces engraved into the rock, often in

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 103

Figure 6.12 E xamples of male and female anthropomorphs from the Pilbara region (drawings by S. R. Steadman based on McDonald 2012: 220, figure 13.2).

quite visible and prominent locations. The Martu culture in the Western Desert region tells archaeologists that petroglyphs were made by Dreamtime creatorbeings to impart sacred information to the people (McDonald and Veth 2012, 2013). Archaeologists have noted that these archaic faces and, in fact, most examples of rock art, are found near sources of water, sometimes in combination with animal tracks (Ross and Abbott 2004). Furthermore, they are found across the breadth of the arid zone, from the Pilbara region near the western coast through the Red Center to the far eastern range of the arid zone near the border of Queensland (Brady and Carson 2012; McDonald and Veth 2012; Ross and Smith 2009). At Cleland Hills in the Red Center, near a permanent water hole (critical in this arid land) there are 17 engraved archaic faces that date to at least 22,000 years ago. These faces are stylistically different from those in the Western Desert and from that found at Gap Hole to the east (Figure 6.13), but a commonality is their frequent association with water, animal tracks, and circles. It is possible that these archaic faces represent the migration of Dreamtime storylines across the arid zone over thousands of years (McDonald 2005; McDonald and Veth 2013), either through the transmission of Dreaming myths or by the travel of people themselves, bringing their mythology with them and reinterpreting it in each new location. For instance, it has been suggested that the Cleland Hills archaic faces appear more owl or emu-like than human (Flood 1997), and at other places, images appear to have koala ears (McDonald 2005). As the Dreamtime story

104  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 6.13 Examples of “Archaic Faces” (drawing by R. Jennison).

linked to the archaic face spread across the arid lands, it may have been incorporated into pre-existing Dreaming myths. Other interpretations might be that the tracks are instead related to an increase ceremony. Finally, it may simply be artists’ observations of animals at the water hole! Animals also regularly appear in the rock art of the arid regions, in both engraved and painted form. In the Pilbara region, a variety of Complex Figurative petroglyphs, at least 27,000 years old (McDonald and Veth 2013), depict a variety of animal tracks and figures, often in the Panaramitee style. At Ewaninga, in the Red Center, roughly 1,000 petroglyphs in Panaramitee and Simple Figurative style may have been created over the last 30,000  years. The question is whether the animal tracks represent daily life or are part of Dreamtime. Ewaninga and similar sites may simply be locations like Hunter’s Cave, where hunters made “doodles” while waiting for the opportune moment to acquire an excellent meal. However, it is equally, perhaps more, likely that these engravings relate to Aboriginal ritual and Dreamtime mythology: The animal tracks (e.g., emu, kangaroo, crane, dingo, and others) might suggest a number of meanings: 1) they are iconic representations of animal creator beings in a Dreamtime story; 2) engravings serve as a type of animal “increase” or “maintenance” ritual device; 3) the repetition of animal tracks and other themes may have served as mnemonic devices in the teaching of ritual and Dreamtime stories during ritual activities (Ross and Davidson 2006); 4) the animal tracks and figures represent totemic affiliations of Aboriginal groups, creating a complex history of

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 105

Dreamtime history and interaction (Smith 2013). Examples from a few of the hundreds of rock art sites in the heart of the continent may offer some insights. The hundreds of engravings at Ewaninga include circles, geometric forms, and animal tracks (Figure 6.14). Aboriginal peoples identify engravings as having been produced by Dreamtime beings long ago (Mountford 1960). The Arrernte culture, who serve as custodians of Ewaninga, have several important Dreaming stories involving emus, caterpillars, and other animals whose tracks or symbols may be represented in the rock art; emu tracks are prominent at Ewaninga. The repetition of engraved animal tracks and symbols resonates with Dreamtime

Figure 6.14 Rock engravings at Ewaninga near Alice Springs (photo by S. R. Steadman).

106  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 6.15  P hoto of “caterpillar dreaming” painted rock art at Emily Gap (photo by S. R. Steadman).

totemic symbols of the Arrernte culture of this region (Gunn 2003). Another example, found at Emily Gap in the Red Center (Figure 6.15), about 40 kilometers from Ewaninga, is an Arrernte Dreamtime story about the caterpillar ancestors who created the landscape; there is a strong totemic connection to this site by the Arrernte people in the region (Ross and Smith 2022). The painted images are layered (Figure 6.16), suggesting the repetition of ritual events renewing the Dreamtime story and teaching/reminding attendees of the area’s creation (Ross and Davidson 2006). Painted Rock Art of North and Northwestern Australia

The regions of North and Northwestern Australia offer incredible examples of painted rock art. Some of the discussion here focuses on the more complex and recently rendered paintings. Because they are more recent, many of the paintings still have Dreamtime stories attached to them. Using these, we can then make some attempts to extrapolate back in time to interpret far older images elsewhere. Rainbow Serpent

Dreamtime myths featuring Rainbow Serpent are some of the most widely spread, occurring across a significant expanse of Northern Australia and in several cultures’ sacred Dreamtime tracks (Gunn 2018). Rainbow Serpent is a creator being, paintings of which date to more than 6,000 years ago in the northern areas of Australia. In many cases, the Rainbow Serpent appears to

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 107

Figure 6.16 Artistic rendering of ancient Aboriginal man painting at Jessie Gap (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

be a composite creature, embodying several types of animals, with apparent plant-like attachments to the body (Taçon et  al. 1996). This strengthens the interpretation of Rainbow Serpent as an ancient creator being, responsible not just for the landscape but all that falls within it. One theory for the ubiquity of the Rainbow Serpent is a precipitous rise in sea levels at that time, bringing numerous sea creatures, including snakes, further inland (Morwood 2002). The idea of waterborne snakes essentially traveling across what was once dry land may have been a very evocative image, creating powerful stories of landscape creation. It is not only in the (sub)tropical north that snakes are associated with water but all over Australia, especially in the arid center, though they are not always known as Rainbow Serpent in these regions. Ethnographic accounts associating paintings of snakes with water could provide clues for interpreting older

108  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

paintings. That snakes live in the water, come up out of the ground as does water (at a spring or waterhole), and leave a trail in the sand that resembles the path of a river or ripples on a lake, are all good reasons to make an association between snakes and water in an arid or even tropical regions. Rainbow Serpent mythology may coincide with a surfeit of water in Northern Australia; snakes are important creatures in the arid center where water is constantly scarce. The Kimberley and Arnhem Land Regions: Gwion, Wanjina, and Mimi Paintings

Rock art in the Kimberley region is some of the earliest found in Northern Australia, dating to more than 17,000 years ago (Harper et al. 2020). There are many types of paintings found in this area, including Dreamtime beings such as “Wanjina,” dancing costumed anthropomorphs known as “Gwion,” animals, stenciled hands, and a style termed “Kimberley Stout Figures,” which feature anthropomorphs with rounded vertically striped bodies, short legs, and occasional headdresses (Gunn et al. 2019). The Wanjina paintings, anthropomorphic figures depicted either as fullbodied figures or just as faces, are found throughout much of the Kimberley region. They are painted in red, yellow, or black, usually on a white background (Figure 6.17). The figures usually have a “halo” or rays emanating from their heads and feature large eyes and nose but no mouths. Aboriginals of the Kimberley region describe Wanjinas as ancestors who made the sky, land, sea, and humans and they are also responsible for rain (Flood 1997). The halo represents clouds, while the rays symbolize lightening. The white background also represents clouds and the Aboriginals of the region suggest Wanjinas are a combination of human and cloud (Crawford 1968). Aboriginal accounts state that the Wanjina paintings were not created by humans but by the Wanjinas long ago. To ensure the provision of food and water, the Wanjina beings must be kept appeased. Part of this appeasement involves regular rites to repaint a clan’s Wanjina and thus renew its power (Goldhahn et al. 2022). In addition, the re-paintings symbolize the renewal of the power of the ancestors, and the re-enforcement of the lessons, laws, and behavioral codes their stories impart. The re-paintings serve as a type of “increase ritual” to renew the critical food supply. The Gwion (formerly “Bradshaw”) paintings depict human figures in elaborate dress, including headdresses, aprons, tassels, and arm bands, sometimes running, kneeling, or sitting (Figure 6.18). The figures are often in attitudes of dance or perhaps celebration. They hold spears or boomerangs and other weapons, bags, ceremonial gear such as dancing sticks (a short stick with feathers adorning one end), or what may be musical instruments. Aboriginals in the region believe the paintings were created by Dreamtime ancestors to portray the essence of the cultural structure for peoples who inhabit the region (Donaldson 2012).

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 109

Figure 6.17 Photo of rock art depicting Wanjinas, on the Barnett River, Mount Elizabeth Station in the Kimberley region (Graeme Churchard, 2013, CC BY 2.0).

In particular, they instructed the Aboriginal cultures in the art of dance and how to properly conduct rituals and ceremonies (Goldhahn et al. 2022). The “Mimi” art, also known as the Dynamic Style, is found in Arnhem Land and is similar to the Gwion paintings in form and content (Figure 6.19). The Mimi art may be more than 10,000 years old. These are called “Mimi” images because the Aboriginal cultures in the region say that the Mimi spirits who inhabit the area were the authors of the paintings. One of the main differences from the Gwion figures is the more energetic movements of the Mimi figures. Many appear to be in full sprint, and there are some scenes that indicate a battle is taking place. Other scenes appear to depict everyday activities such as hunting and gathering (Flood 1983); images of animals and animal tracks abound. Another interesting feature of the Mimi images are the dots and lines that denote

110  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

Figure 6.18 Photo of Gwion figures at a site near the King Edward River in the Kimberley region (TimJN1, 2009, CC BY-SA 2.0).

the issue of sound from mouths; this is a unique feature in Aboriginal rock art. The presence of therianthropes and anthropomorphs suggest Dreamtime stories were an important part of the Mimi art of Arnhem Land. What can we learn from the Gwion and Mimi paintings? One interesting feature is the elaborate dress of the figures, particularly their headdresses and attitudes of dance. Several researchers note that Aboriginal groups in these regions still wear dress at important sacred rituals that bears strong resemblance to those in the Gwion and Mimi paintings (Harper et  al. 2020). It has been noted that some cultures on the island of New Guinea wear similar accoutrements during ritual activities. At the time these paintings were created, Australia and New Guinea were connected by land. Recently, rock art discovered on the islands of Borneo and Sulawesi, dating to ca. 35,000 years ago, depict figures with elaborate costume in attitudes of dance (Aubert et al. 2018). The costumes of the Gwion figures, comparable to those worn by Aboriginals today, displaying possible similarities to those found in New Guinea and to rock art in Indonesia, suggest a deep antiquity of regional beliefs and behaviors across a broad expanse

Rock Art and Ritual in Africa and Australia 111

Figure 6.19  P hoto of Mimi style painted figures at Nourlangie in Kakadu National Park. Note the frenetic poses which distinguish them from the somewhat more sedate Gwion figures (Dustin M. Ramsey, 2002, CC BY-SA 2.5).

across what was once Sahul and nearby regions. One can imagine that, if the rocks under the sea were suddenly exposed and magically restored, thousands more examples of such dancing figures would give us much more insight into the extent of a complex and ancient belief system. The warring figures in the Mimi art are also interesting because they show rather significant battles taking place. The Mimi paintings may be largely contemporary with the end stages of the Pleistocene and rising sea levels. Is it possible that battles over decreasing areas of land were occurring? One scholar suggests that it is during this time that clan totemism became ensconced in Aboriginal culture and was used as a method to mark territories for clan and kin groups, something perhaps unnecessary in earlier periods when land was more plentiful (Layton 1992). Perhaps the Gwion and Mimi images recount an early history of the region: Peaceful inter-cultural religious events, followed by wars between peoples desperate to protect their hunting and gathering territories. The institution of sacred landscapes and important totems associated with individual groups who claimed those territories may have become paramount in such circumstances. Conclusion The antiquity of African and Australian rock art makes nuanced interpretation of the images an impossibility. Ethnographic accounts and scientific research offer us many insights into the possible meanings embedded in the art, but these

112  The Emergence of Religion in Human Culture

can take us only so far. However, our study of the depictions does reveal how intertwined was the intersection between their rituals and myths and their environment. The depth of belief in the spirits and beings of the supernatural world who created and sustained these ancient peoples is displayed clearly, in bright colors, across the rock faces of Africa and Australia and many other regions of the world. Investigation into the religion expressed in these beautiful images remains one of the most intriguing fields in the archaeology of religion.

Part III

Religions in Europe and Western Asia

Chapter 7

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic From Cave to Village

As Neanderthals disappeared across Europe and Homo sapiens began to inhabit the continent, new material culture began to emerge. The Upper Palaeolithic (UP) period (35,000–10,000 bp) saw the development of a vast range of tool technology, the exploitation of a wider range of resources, and, among many other innovations, the emergence of what can be called “art.” This art occurs in many forms including figurines, sculpture in relief, and paintings and engravings on cave walls. The European UP is divided into cultural periods based on stone tool technology and some radiocarbon dates (Zilhão 2014). The earliest is the Châtelperronian period (ca. 43,000–41,000 kya), which follows the earlier Mousterian period that sees the last remnants of Neanderthal material culture; the (Proto) Aurignacian (ca. 41,000–33,000 bp) heralds the appearance of new material culture associated with archaic Homo sapiens. Overlapping the Aurignacian, the Gravettian period (ca. 35,000–18,000 bp) sees the earliest cave art and the creation of figurines, both in the round and carved into cave walls. These two periods are followed by the Solutrean (ca. 25,000–19,000 bp), when more sophisticated stone tool technology develops and cave art begins to regularly appear. The final European UP period is known as the Magdalenian (ca. 20,000–14,000 bp). The majority of the figurative (animals, therianthropes, anthropomorphs) rock art was created in the late Gravettian, Solutrean, and Magdalenian periods. UP Europeans were hunter-gatherers; hunters concentrated on reindeer, but other large mammals such as red deer, bison, ibex, and wild ox were also part of their diet. In addition to art on cave walls and human figures, UP humans made other objects of great beauty, including atlatls (spear throwers) decorated with animal carvings, delicate and intricate fishhooks of bone and antler, and weapons carved with animals or other designs. While UP hunting and gathering groups may have taken shelter inside caves during the worst of the winter months, archaeological research has shown that, for substantial portions of the year, small groups lived outside for weeks or months in impermanent shelters. It is also possible that several groups may have aggregated once or at various times during the year, perhaps at cave sites. Such gatherings may have allowed DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-10

116  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

for the transmission of information, the opportunity to visit with kin members, perhaps even to exchange goods. Gatherings at cave sites may have been partially responsible for the artwork, associated with rituals, information recording or transmission, or for other reasons important to the artists. The period following the UP is known as the Neolithic (beginning ca. 8,000 bce and lasting several thousand years). During this period, the occupants of Europe and Western Asia developed agriculture that resulted in more permanent settlement. Ceramics for storage and cooking were invented and animals were domesticated. Neolithic cultures in Europe and Western Asia continued to produce figurines in even greater numbers. Neolithic sites offer evidence of a rich ritual life. Upper Palaeolithic Rock Art in Europe Hundreds of caves across Europe offer painted UP images of hand stencils, animals, anthropomorphs and therianthropes, geometric designs such as dots, lines, cross-hatchings, and human hands in reverse relief. Some caves offer but a few examples of art, while others such as Lascaux, Chavet, and Les Trois Fréres in France and Alta Mira in Spain (Figure 7.1) provide entire galleries for study. In many cases, animals were repainted several times, perhaps as a form of renewal,

Figure 7.1 M ap of sites and regions discussed in the chapter (map by S. R. Steadman).

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 117

and in other cases, entirely new scenes were painted over previous images. The paintings were often in deep recesses of the caves, difficult to reach and far from any natural light. They were not created for the casual viewer who might wander into a handy cave. Hand Stencils

Hand stencils (Figure 7.2) are the earliest rock art images in Europe, dating to as early as the Gravettian period (at least by 37,000 bp) or earlier (García-Diez

Figure 7.2 H and stencil in Gargas Cave, possibly missing digits (The Wendel Collection, Neanderthal Museum 2018, CC BY-SA 4.0).

118  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

et al. 2015). Hand stencils may even precede the creation of figurines, previously thought to be the earliest examples of European art (Pettitt et al. 2015), leading archaeologists to speculate about whether the earliest examples of hand stencils were created by Homo sapiens or Neanderthals. Artists continued to create hand stencil images for thousands of years in caves spanning Spain, France, and Italy. There are several interesting clues to UP cultural behavior that derive from the hand stencils. Probably not particularly relevant is that the majority of stencils are of the left hand, likely because artists were right-handed. A more interesting aspect of the hand stencils is who made them. Research suggests that as much as 75% of these stencils were made by women, based on sexually dimorphic differences in hand sizes of males and females (Snow 2006, 2013). This opens up the discussion of identity of artists who made the more complex images of animals and anthropomorphs in late UP cave art, a subject discussed later. A second interesting feature concerns the number and type of digits found in some of the hand stencils. It sometimes appears that part of the finger—or an entire finger—is missing. These may have resulted simply from bent fingers during the paint application. Another explanation suggests the possibility that attenuated digits represented some type of counting system (Overmann 2014), though what was the subject of the enumeration is entirely open to debate. Ethnographic work has led some scholars to suggest these hands represent intentional amputations of finger joints (McCauley et al. 2018). The reason for the amputations might simply be the difficult life of the UP hunter-gatherer. However, ethnographic work suggests that more ritually based causes may also be possible, serving as “sacrifices” to achieve a desired outcome (e.g., accomplish an initiation, conceive a child, avoid or cause illness), or possibly to venerate an ancestor or mourn a death (McCauley et al. 2018). Figurative Cave Art

When places such as Lascaux Cave were first discovered in the nineteenth century, archaeologists believed the images, which mainly portray Ice Age animals, represented aspects of the hunting way of life (Figure 7.3). An early theory, known as “Hunter’s Art,” suggested cave art depicted images of hunting triumphs by UP men who painted only what they knew: Hunting. The “Hunting Magic” interpretation emerged in the early twentieth century; this theory employs Sir James Frazer’s ideas on magic, suggesting that the drawings on the walls were made by men preparing for the hunt who drew the animal(s) they wished to kill, and thereby, in a form of sympathetic magic, ensuring a successful hunt. This interpretation explained why some animals appeared to have arrows or spears sailing toward them or embedded in their bodies, representing the sympathetic “killing” of the animal (Dickson 1990). Further research turned up flaws in these interpretations. For instance, a comparison of faunal material retrieved from UP sites demonstrated that many of

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 119

Figure 7.3 Top: Photo of ice age animals painted on the wall of Lascaux Cave, France. Note dots or marks above the animal’s nose ( JoJan, 2021, CC BY 4.0). Bottom: Photo of facsimile reproduction of deer and horse paintings in Lascaux cave in Dordogne France. Note dots underneath the animals (Photo 246658466/Lascaux Cave © Lacroix Christine|Dreamstime.com).

120  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

the animals depicted, such as cave lions, were rarely, if ever, eaten. Furthermore, why were anthropomorphs and therianthropes depicted (see Figures 3.4 and 7.4)? What did lines, dots (see Figure 7.3), and other non-hunting-related imagery mean? Another significant problem was that only about 20% of the animals were actually “killed” in the art. In the end, explanations such as Hunting Magic and Hunter’s Art were too simplistic, not to mention mono-gendered, to suffice as interpretations (Hays-Gilpin 2003). A more comprehensive interpretation was provided by André Leroi-Gourhan (1965), who used structuralist methodology to suggest that the paintings were not accomplished piecemeal by individual artists for their own purposes, but rather, composed as ensembles offering the representation of UP cosmology. In an intensive study of the positioning of animals and designs on cave walls, LeroiGourhan advocated that certain animals and geometric designs occurred in pairs

Figure 7.4 Photo of facsimile reproduction painting of a therianthrope (a human male with a bird-like head) in Lascaux Cave, Dordogne, France (Photo 246658560/ Lascaux Cave © Lacroix Christine|Dreamstime.com).

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 121

or in intentional association with one another. These systematic co-occurrences created a “syntax” of meaning for UP humans, representing important myths and principles significant in their cosmology. Leroi-Gourhan suggested that one central concept illustrated was the male-female principle, in which certain animals were “male” and others “female”; their juxtapositions conveyed important information to UP viewers. However, Leroi-Gourhan’s predictions about which animals and symbols should occur together have not held up in further examination of more recently discovered caves, and his complicated theory has become far less prominent in recent decades (Rivero and Ruiz 2018). An intriguing theory identifies the unusual anthropomorphs and therianthropes, along with the more naturalistic animals, as evidence for the presence of secret societies in a UP complex hunter-gatherer culture (Hayden 2020). This would explain the presence of non-food animals such as cave lions or rhinoceroses on rock walls, perhaps representing “grades” attained in a secret society. In this theory, therianthropes such as the “sorcerer” in Les Trois Fréres Cave (see Figure 3.4) exemplify a leader, or perhaps initiator, in the society. Art locations deep within caves ensured the secrecy of that particular society’s/clan’s rites. The type of art created on the walls (engraved, painted, complex, or simple) may have represented not only the artistic abilities of society members but also the wealth of particular societies (Hayden 2020). Those possessing greater resources (stockpiles of food or other necessities) could spend more time and energy deep within caves accomplishing society-related rites. In some caves, there is evidence of the cannibalistic creation of cups or bowls made of skull caps (Bello et al. 2017); ethnographic data suggests that cannibalism was an important factor in some secret societies (Hayden 2020). A related but alternative interpretation is that the rock art testifies to ancestor veneration in UP cultures (Hayden 2003; Winkelman 2019). All of the images would fit this model as well, including animals that might represent totemic ancestors, therianthropes as depictions of the ancestor, and other symbols which could represent an ancestor’s death (arrow?) or other life experience. Even the evidence of cannibalism fits with ethnographic data on ancestor veneration activities (Schulting 2015). Many other interpretations of the rock art meaning have been offered, including Lewis-Williams’ neuropsychological model, discussed in Chapters 3–4, who suggests that European cave art, like that in Africa and elsewhere, depicts shamanistic activities and images seen during ASC. Lewis-Williams suggests the UP people believed the walls of caves separated this world from the spiritual plane to which their shamans needed to travel. Anthropomorphs and therianthropes who appear to be humans adorned with animal accoutrements depict actual shamans engaged in their important activities. The various geometric forms represent the entoptic phenomena—the shapes shamans saw as they entered the trance (LewisWilliams 2002). Animals may have represented the shaman’s spirit or that of the spirit helper. In some cases, the images on the cave walls depict the mission of

122  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

the shaman (to ensure a good hunt? to increase the fertility of the herd?). LewisWilliams (2002) suggests that particular paintings, especially those rendered so that the animals appear to be part of the cave wall or extend from it, may be part of a shaman’s vision quest or initiation process into the shamanistic echelon. The shaman’s realization, within the deep and dark recesses of a cave, of a spirit helper emerging from the cave wall was then painted in reality on that wall as a record of the vision. While Lewis-Williams believes his theories describe much of the extraordinary art in these caves, he acknowledges that there are many images we will never be able to interpret. One major question that is incredibly difficult to answer is, “Who were the artists?” In the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century, it was simply assumed that the artists were male. In recent decades, archaeologists have attempted to delve into this issue. Already discussed is the apparent sexual dimorphism found in hand stencils. A recent study suggests that they may have represented initiation rites for both boys and girls (Nowell and French 2020). Hand stencils made by both males and females suggests that women may have figured as prominently in artistic endeavors as men, whether in initiation ceremonies, rites associated with ancestor veneration, or rituals carried out by secret societies. Another clue comes from the relatively few UP burials in which both males and females have been recovered. In burials across UP Europe, ochre was used to stain the bones of both sexes (Orschiedt 2018), and in one case, the ochre included in a female’s burial was the same as that used to paint the Magdalenian period El Mirón Cave wall (in Spain) in which she was buried (Seva Román et al. 2019). Several burials, mostly Magdalenian in date, suggest special treatment of individuals, both male and female, and in some cases, children, due to the inclusion of ochre, burial gifts, and animal paraphernalia including antlers (Orschiedt 2018). An example of such special treatment is described in the Dolní Věstonice case study, which follows. Some regard the inclusion of such items, especially antlers and animal bones, to be indicative of individuals who may have served as shamans for their people (Mykailova 2019). Archaeologists may never definitively know who the UP cave artists were. What is abundantly clear is that the act of painting and the paintings themselves were of great important to UP humans. Dolní Věstonice

The site of Dolní Věstonice (Figure 7.1) in the Czech Republic was occupied as early as 31,000 years ago (Fewlass et al. 2019). The residents, who lived in mammoth bone huts, were complex hunter-gatherers and relied heavily on large game for their subsistence. The residents made baskets and/or wove textiles, some of which appear on female figurines (see the following). A number of figurines, both animal and anthropomorphic, have been recovered at Dolní Věstonice and the nearby site of Pavlov. Animal forms, usually made of ceramic or ivory, represent mammoths, lions, bears, and horses, among other creatures (Svoboda

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 123

2015). Some of the animal figurines seem to have been intentionally destroyed by casting them into the fire. Anthropomorphic figurines are varied, featuring females as well as other more unusual forms, discussed later. The burials recovered at Dolní Věstonice are also intriguing (Svoboda 2015). Perhaps the most famous is the “triple burial” of three young males laid side by side (Mittnik et al. 2016); the male on the right lay on his front, the male on the left was on his back but turned slightly to the middle, and his hands were placed on the middle male’s pelvis. The middle male exhibited congenital skeletal abnormalities, including shortened limb bones and small stature or scoliosis (Formicola et al. 2001). Each had ochre staining the skull; the middle individual also had ochre coloration on the pelvis. Accompanying these three burials was jewelry made of animal teeth and mammoth ivory. Another burial featured an elderly woman (35–45  years of age) whose skull was stained with ochre; buried with her was a probable pendant of fox teeth. An elderly man, perhaps 36–45 years old, was buried near a hearth, his head and pelvis were stained with ochre, and he also possessed remnants of a probable pendant made of fox teeth. The specialized treatment of both males and females, including one person with serious physical abnormalities, suggests a UP population open to accepting a wide range of individuals as possible spiritual leaders. Figurines in the Upper Palaeolithic Another major category of UP art is the collection of several hundred anthropomorphic, usually female, figurines from sites in France, Italy, the Czech Republic, and Austria, and from as far east as Ukraine and Russia (Nowell and Chang 2014). Earliest examples began to appear ca. 35,000 years go with the majority occurring between 25,000–20,000 bp. These objects are examples of “portable art” (items that can be carried); figurines were carved of bone, ivory, coal, and stone; they are also found as partial reliefs carved in cave walls. Figurines have been discovered inside caves as well as at open air sites, often inside or near hearths; they are often named for the sites at which they were discovered (Figure 7.5a–c). Some appear to have been intentionally buried. While the majority of figurines appear to represent the female body, some are not gender-specific or may also represent males. An example is the socalled “rod with breasts” from the site of Dolní Věstonice (Figure 7.5d) and the so-called “breast beads” used on pendants (Lázničková-Galetová 2019) (Figure 7.6); most interpret these protrusions as breasts, but this and other similar examples could also represent male genitalia, a third or non-binary gender perception, or some non-human form all together. While most figurines show no clear facial characteristics, a few, including one from Brassempouy in France (Figure 7.7) and a carved head from Dolní Věstonice, have finely carved faces. Quite a few have no feet, but rather, come to a point so that they may be propped upright in sand or a holder; others have clearly rendered legs and feet, sometimes in a flexed position.

124  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

Figure 7.5 Examples of female figurines from Upper Palaeolithic European sites: a. figurine from Willendorf (photo by Jacob Halun, 2021, CC BY-SA 4.0); b. figurine from Dolni Vestonice (photo by Petr Novak, 2007, CC BY-SA 2.5); c. figurine from Hohle Fels (photo by Ramessos, 2011, CC BY-SA 3.0); d. Sketch of “Rod and Breast” figurine from Dolni Vestonice (drawing S. R. Steadman).

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 125

Figure 7.6 Example of a “breast bead” from Dolní Věstonice (drawing by S. R. Steadman, after Lázničková-Galetová 2019: figure 1.54 ).

Figure 7.7 Photo of carved ivory head from Brassempouy ( Jean-Gilles Berizzi, 2006, public domain).

126  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

Some figurines have designs that may represent items of apparel or jewelry such as that on the figurine from Willendorf (e.g., Figure 7.5a). Many figurines had been painted or sprinkled with ochre. While many have large breasts and/or buttocks, wide hips, and appear pregnant, others do not and may even be considered “slender” (Nelson 2001; Nowell and Chang 2014). Though there is no “typical” figurine that is representative of the entire class of UP examples, this did not stop early archaeologists from offering a monolithic interpretation. What caught the attention of nineteenth century archaeologists was the accentuated breasts and hips found on some of the earlier figurines such as figurines from Willendorf and Dolní Věstonice, also present on the recently discovered Hohle Fels example (Figure 7.5a–c). These characteristics led to the name of “Venus” being attached to these figurines in the nineteenth century, thereby associating them with love, sex, and the Western-style eroticism of the female body. It was believed that these figurines were made by UP European men, for men’s purposes (Nelson 2001), either simply as UP “pin-up girls” related to sex and eroticism or representative of fertility and the continuation of the male kin line. In this latter instance, the figurines represented the position of UP women as “vessels” to carry on the human species and provide progeny for their male counterparts; some explanations moved closer to a more female-centered view, suggesting the figurines celebrated the institution of motherhood (Beck 2000). As time moved on and the figurines were studied with more statistical and stylistic vigor, the diversity of the shapes and renderings were noted. Some challenged the “femaleness” of many figurines, suggesting that perhaps only 60% could be confirmed as female (Beck 2000). Studies in the 1970s and 1980s sought to break away from androcentric interpretations and delve into the roles these figurines might have played in more gender-neutral or female-centered Upper Palaeolithic life. By the later twentieth century, scholars began to focus on why women might have made—and used—figurines. Marshack (1972) suggested that they were part of the UP European women’s worlds and functioned as prompts for stories, as temporary ritual objects, or to teach young women about their coming maturity and aspects of adult womanhood. He noted that lines incised on the stomach, breast, or legs of a number of figurines may have served to mark the passage of time in increments, such as the monthly occurrence of menstruation, months between birth and next pregnancy, or any other aspect of time that may have been important to UP women (Marshack 1972). Although many of Marshack’s notions about the figurines were largely speculative, his observations derived from a much more thorough study than had previous theories and were some of the first to place the function of the figurines squarely in the realm of the UP woman’s world. In a similar vein, Rice (1981) suggested that the figurines had no religious or spiritual meaning at all but were simply illustrated various phases of women’s lives. This interpretation would explain why only a segment of the figurines appear pregnant, some are slender like a prepubescent girl, and

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 127

others seem to portray women in more mature stages of their lives. Also in the 1980s, a number of books and articles identified the figurines as representations of a “mother goddess” religion (Eisler 1988; Gimbutas 1989). The role of the mother goddess was thought to range from a focus on female fertility and pregnancy (from the female rather than the male perspective) to the fertility of the earth as giver of plant and animal life to Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. That UP women might have been focused on pregnancy is not unrealistic. Though percentages of the UP infant-mortality rate or numbers of woman who died in childbirth are unknown, it is safe to assume that death rates would have been fairly high. Women turning to a supernatural power to see them through pregnancy and birth is not difficult to imagine. Further, if UP women were primarily responsible for gathering plant foods, it is possible that they equated pregnancy and birth to the growing season with its fruition of edible products. Scholars continue to argue that the figurines represented female fertility (both human and earthen) and could be described as symbolic personifications of a “mother goddess” (Merlini 2021; Harrod 2011), or perhaps more accurately, the spirit or essence of fertility and womanhood. The “mother goddess” interpretation does have some flaws, however. Not all figurines are “pregnant,” for instance, and others such as the “rod and breast” would hardly seem to represent any aspect of childbirth or related concepts. Other issues such as the questionable femaleness of at least 40% of the figurines led to a reexamination of this concept. Many scholars questioned whether distinguishing the figurines as goddesses was just as flawed an approach as earlier androcentric views identifying them as “venuses” and erotic “pin-up girls” for UP men (Rountree 2001). In recent decades, scholars have sought explanations of why UP women might have endeavored to represent themselves in figurine form. Rather than anonymous “stages” of life, some have suggested that the figurines are renderings of individual women in the form of “self-portraits” (McDermott 1996; and see Morriss-Kay 2012). This suggestion is based on the somewhat odd dimensions of some of the figurines that scholars suggest derive from a woman’s selfinspection and explain the lack of face and limited attention to feet (McCord and McDermott 1996). The figurines would function as a “mirror” for women’s purposes. Another study suggests that the different body forms and structures of the figurines can be read as a communication system using body language (Schebesch 2013; and see Mussi 2015). Some body attitudes might suggest sadness; others may seem to be rejoicing. These may have been displayed to portray the maker’s psychological or physical status or even carried to other communities as “news” of events. An innovative approach suggests that the materials from which the figurines were made and how they were made is as important as the images they project (Farbstein 2011a, 2011b). The choice of material for the figurines (bone, ivory, ceramic) may have been important social markers of identity, status, even regional location. Similarly, the markings on

128  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

various figurines may have signaled important information to those who viewed them. A number of archaeologists believe that the figurines do represent religious belief and ritual behavior but not necessarily in the format of supernatural (mother goddess) beings. Archaeologists have noted that some, though not all, of the figurines appear to wear clothing such as hats, belts, or halters or jewelry (a “hair net” on Brassempouy in Figure 7.7 and woven cloth on Willendorf in Figure 7.5a). These clothing items may have been status markers, perhaps identifying types of specialized work a woman carried out for her community, such as shamans, midwives, or healers (Soffer et al. 2000; Tedlock 2005: 33). This interpretation offers some interesting areas for speculation. Perhaps each midwife-shaman carried her own figurine as well as a “temporary” pregnant figurine for each client; elements of sympathetic magic might have aided (both magically and psychologically) in a successful birth process. Non-pregnant figurines might have represented clients suffering other ills needing the healer’s help. That women may have served as shamans for their UP communities is a theory not without merit. In addition to the clothing and other markers on the figurines, other evidence suggests special usage. There is ochre on some figurines, and many, particularly those made of ceramic, appear to have been intentionally destroyed (including those depicting animals) by being thrown into a hearth fire to cause them to explode (Soffer et  al. 1993; Vandiver 2022). Such rituals might signal a successful—or perhaps unsuccessful—birth or that the shaman’s job was complete (magically vanquishing a predatory animal or aiding the successful hunting of one, assisting a birth, or perhaps completing a young woman’s initiation rite). Envisioning these figurines as representative of female shamans and their work offers a nearly polar opposite interpretation to that of the “pin-up girls” theory of earlier decades. Neolithic Europe and Western Asia The Neolithic period (ca. 9500–6000 bce) in Europe and Western Asia, including Anatolia (Figure 7.1), is a time of dramatic changes in the human experience. Humans began plant cultivation, domesticated animals, began residing in relatively permanent settlements, engaged in long-distance exchange, and initiated more multi-faceted socioeconomic and sociopolitical structures. One thing that remained consistent from the UP was the creation of human figurines. In fact, even more figurines were produced at sites across Europe and Western Asia. The theory that UP figurines represented a mother goddess religion was applied even more firmly to cultures of the Neolithic and post-Neolithic periods. A greater reliance on cultivated plants and a possible focus on fertility and the agricultural cycle, combined with far greater numbers of female figurines, convinced some scholars that a mother-goddess-based religion existed in the

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 129

Neolithic. Marija Gimbutas was one of the most vocal proponents of the idea that a mother goddess religion existed in Neolithic “Old Europe,” including Malta and Crete, Greece, Italy, Ukraine, Hungary, and the Balkans and Anatolia (Gimbutas 2007). Neolithic figurines from these regions are quite varied in size, style, form, and design (Figure 7.8). Some are seated, or “enthroned”; others are in an upright position; some hold infants or hold their breasts, stomachs, or abdomens. Figurines occasionally appear pregnant; many have stylized faces, while others have no face at all. Gimbutas suggested that the mother goddess represented the life, death, and rebirth of the earth (i.e., seasonal changes), as well as the fertility cycle of human women in their role as propagators of the human species (Gimbutas 1989, 2007). Though some continue to support the mother-goddess theory as proposed by Gimbutas (e.g., Spretnak 2011), many note that like UP figurines not all are clearly female and there may be a variety of other viable interpretations. A number of scholars point to archaeological context rather than the appearance of or decoration on the figurines for explanations. For instance, figurines discovered in or near graves may have represented the death or even afterlife of particular individuals buried there. Perhaps the figurines served a purpose in rituals devoted to ancestor veneration (of both males and females, since figurines of both sexes are found), not only to protecting living family members but also as important foci of devotional activities. A study of figurines found in later Bulgarian sites (dating to the fifth and early fourth millennia bce) suggested that the figurines depicted actual individuals (Bailey 1994). The painted, incised, and pierced designs may have indicated the social position of the individuals, including their socioeconomic rank and even societal role (e.g., religious personage, leader, farmer, etc.) (Bailey 1994). Another study notes that many figurines are found near ovens and hearths— essentially the “heart” of the house (Hodder 1990). There may be, therefore, a link between the figurines and the hearth or the activities that take place near the hearth, including food processing and cooking, and textile production. The figurines, then, could (ritually?) symbolize important tasks in the household, with a particular focus on the activities that enabled residents to live relatively comfortable lives. These do not symbolize a “mother goddess” cult, but rather, the space and work associated with the female half of the society. At some European sites female figurines appear to have been deliberately broken and placed in refuse pits (Meskell 2017); additionally, some houses had been deliberately burned (Tringham and Conkey 1998). This leads to some speculation that the figurines represented not only women’s work but specific women. Perhaps when the household cycle was completed, when the “woman of the house” died, her figurines and her house were destroyed. When taken as a whole, the evidence for a link between home, work, woman, and figurines is quite strong, though the exact symbolic meaning of that link will likely remain unclear. If this is indeed the case, it is quite possible that other objects represented men’s work

130  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

Figure 7.8 Examples of the varied types of female figurines in Neolithic Europe: a. female figurine known as the “enthroned goddess” flanked by animals; excavated at the site of Çatalhöyük (ca. 6000 bce) (Anatolian Civilizations Museum; Nevit Dilmen, 2012, CC SA-BY 2.5); b. Neolithic female figurine (ca. 4500–3500 bce) from the Vinča culture (in modern Serbia) (Cleveland Museum of Art, CCO 1.0 Universal, public domain); c. a seated female figurine holds a baby excavated at the (Post-Neolithic, ca. 4800–4500 bce) site of Sesklo, Greece (National Archaeological Museum of Athens; Zde, 2014, CC BY-SA 3.0).

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 131

and spaces, though these might have been located outside the households or were made of organic materials that do not remain in the record for our review. Çatalhöyük

The Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük (ca. 7500–6500 bce) in Türkiye has held people’s fascination since it was first excavated in the 1960s. The roughly 8,000 Neolithic period inhabitants at this site had begun the process of domesticating animals, including cattle, and were regularly cultivating crops such as wheat and barley. The site features rooms with wall paintings, unusual furniture, human subfloor burials, and human figurines. These discoveries led the original excavator to describe it as a Neolithic village containing many “shrine” rooms (Mellaart 1967). More recent excavations in the 1990s have revised this suggestion, instead identifying most of the “shrines” as domestic homes. Nonetheless, the very unusual features within these homes suggest a rich symbolic belief system. The rectangular structures at Çatalhöyük were built of mudbrick and included a hearth and platforms used for sleeping, sitting, storage, or perhaps other purposes (Figure 7.9); rooms shared walls, and entrances into many homes seem to have been via the rooftop rather than floor level. Much of daily life likely took place on rooftops rather than in the darker interiors of the houses. The so-called “shrine rooms” contained unusual furniture and walls embedded with horns, often from cattle, and animal-shaped reliefs protruding from walls (Figure 7.10).

Figure 7.9 Archaeological site of Çatalhöyük showing the 1960s excavations of Neolithic structures (Omar Hoftun, 2013, CC BY-SA 3.0).

132  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

Figure 7.10  Top: Photo of reconstructed room (previously called a “shrine room”) within a house at Çatalhöyük showing molded bull’s heads protruding from the walls (Photo 112223935/Catalhoyuk © Firdes Sayilan|Dreamstime.com). Bottom: Photo of “bucrania” in a bench or platform within a room at the site of Çatalhöyük (Verity Cridland, 2008, CC BY-SA 2.0).

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 133

Cattle are the most common animal depicted in this “molded” relief art, but in a few special cases, leopards also decorate a wall. Many house walls also feature murals or painted decoration. Some scenes seem to depict human activities such as hunting wild animals, but others are harder to interpret. In one case, a large bird, possibly a vulture, appears to be attacking headless humans (Figure 7.11). Bulls feature frequently in the wall art. Another scene depicts a man that may be wearing a leopard skin. Wall paintings of bulls in combination with bull’s horns in furniture and bull-head shapes protruding from walls led to the suggestion of a Çatalhöyük bull cult associated with agricultural fertility (Balter 2005; Mellaart 1967). Hand stencils are also found on walls as are geometric decorations; some houses had painted panels but no images. Later excavations at Çatalhöyük revealed that these wall paintings were frequently covered over by a new layer of paint (whitewash), sometimes then receiving new painted images and sometimes not (Hodder and Gürlek 2020). The discovery of human figurines made of stone and clay, particularly those appearing to be female, were perhaps the items that launched Çatalhöyük most significantly into fame. The most famous of these figurines is the “enthroned” female flanked by two animals, possibly lions (Figure 7.8a). For many, this figurine confirmed the existence of the European mother-goddess cult in Türkiye at this early stage of incipient agriculture (Balter 2005; Cauvin 2000; Mellaart 1967). However, figurines at Çatalhöyük also depict males or have no identifiable sexual characteristics, and the vast majority of the 2,000 figures so far recovered at the site are of animals rather than humans, and of these, only a tiny minority appear female. Many figurines were made very quickly and then discarded in trash dumps or in abandoned fills in houses (Hodder and Meskell 2010; Meskell 2017).

Figure 7.11 Reconstruction of the “vulture” wall paintings at Çatalhöyük (Murat Özsoy, 2019, CC BY-SA 4.0).

134  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

The Neolithic people of Çatalhöyük buried their dead under house floors, usually under sleeping/sitting platforms in the house (though infants and children might be in other locations as well). Both adults and infants/children were found in these contexts, and in many cases, there were multiple individuals emplaced over time. After interment, house residents remade the platform and it continued in use within the household. A few burials were decorated with paints made from ochre, cinnabar, and other materials. Males were decorated with red, while females typically had blue or green paint (Scholtsmans et al. 2002). Analyses of paint on the skeletal remains matches that on the same house walls, suggesting that the painting of the house walls occurred at the time of burial (Scholtsmans et al. 2002). The rich symbolism expressed in Çatalhöyük houses has led to many interpretations regarding this Neolithic population’s religious beliefs, some of which were described earlier. The importance of animals both in painted and modeled art and the deposition of animal remains, including bones and pelts within the houses and burials (Pawlowska and Marciszak 2018; Russell and Meece 2006; Russell 2023), could suggest the practice of totemism at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. The burials of adults under the platforms might suggest ancestor veneration practices, though the burial of children and infants may dilute this possibility. Alternatively, a possible belief in a “life cycle” of death and rebirth might explain the burials, perhaps correlating with a culture in the early throes of plant domestication. The differentiated colors on some of the skeletal remains might designate specialized personages, through their functions—shaman, healer, midwife—is completely speculative. The figurines, most of which depict animals, may be related to totemistic relationships or perhaps to the importance of animals in subsistence strategies. The relative rarity of clearly male and female figurines and the existence of genderless forms may suggest that more critical was the simple portrayal of “humanness” in whatever role these figurines were meant to play. The many unusual features of this site may represent a population’s attempt to deal with a quickly changing world. The people of Çatalhöyük were embarking on the domestication of plants and animals, transitioning from a world in which nature ruled to one in which humans attempted to take control of their fortunes. The multivariate symbolism expressed in the many venues at this extraordinary site may, in part, represent the human attempt to forge ahead in an uncertain future in which the human hand, and not nature, was responsible for survival (Hodder and Meskell 2010). Lepenski Vir

The early Neolithic site of is Lepenski Vir is located in eastern Serbia. Occupation at the site began around 6100 bce and continued for several hundred years (Borić 2019). This is a critical juncture in European prehistory when a transition from foraging to farming was underway, witnessed by the generations living at

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 135

Figure 7.12  Sketch plan of Lepenski Vir village (drawing by S. R. Steadman).

Lepenski Vir. Genomic studies of the burials at Lepenski Vir reveal that people from the east, including Anatolia and the Aegean Basin, lived at Lepenski Vir, possibly among the local population (Brami et al. 2022; Borić 2019). It is quite possible that practices associated with farming were brought to Lepenski Vir by this migrant population. The Lepenski Vir village rests on the shores of the Danube River and features more than 60 structures that are trapezoidal in shape, all with doorways facing the river (Figure 7.12). Each house had a plastered floor and an interior hearth; in some houses, small stone slabs were set into the ground in a “V” shape, with the point toward the hearth (Srejović 1972). The residents mainly hunted deer, and though they gathered plant foods, they had begun to engage in cultivation activities. Naturally, residents also made extensive use of the river resources; fish made up a considerable portion of their diet. They made bone and stone tools and weapons, some bearing designs that are similar to those found on stone boulders inside the houses. Spread throughout the houses were more than 90 sculpted stones. A number of these may have served as mortars (Borić 2014), but the unusual carvings on many of them led the excavator to suggest they may have also functioned as altars (Srejović 1972). Some of the carvings seem to feature animals such as deer or were suggestive of fish. Others had intricate designs carved on them (Figure 7.13). The most striking were boulders of varying size sculpted into anthropomorphic

136  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

Figure 7.13 S tone carved statues from Lepenski Vir. Left: Example of intricate designs. Right: Example of carved statue with fish-like features (photos by Vanilitsa, 2021, CC BY-SA 4.0).

figures, some looking distinctly fish-like; others represent human heads, rather than whole bodies, and the statues appear to depict both males and females, the latter occasionally depicting genitalia (Figure 7.14). These statues are found in the back areas of houses, though the finest examples were in the building called the Central Structure, where they stood behind the hearth, facing the river. Also found at Lepenski Vir were burials of both adults and more than 40 neonates (Borić 2016). Adults were buried under the floors, usually west of the hearth or outside buildings; infants were typically found in the rear areas of the structures. Some of the adult burials included aurochs or red deer bones or horns/antlers. Interpreting the rich iconography and symbolic representations at Lepenski Vir is challenging. Animal remains in burials may have reflected the importance of hunting in their subsistence strategies or possibly represent some type of totemistic association in Lepenski Vir cosmology. The V-shaped stone designs surrounding some hearths may have held deep symbolic meaning or they may have simply been decorative or functional. The same can be said of the carved stones within the buildings. While some seem to have clearly functioned as mortars, the excavator suggests that another purpose was more symbolic, namely, that carved stones east of the hearth represented the sun and life, while burials under the floors west of the hearth represented death (Srejović 1972). The carved stones with ornamental designs found in the buildings may have carried important meaning for residents, given the effort needed to create them and their prominent placement. Tempting interpretations include totemic or clan symbols, representations of cosmological components or beings, or perhaps the carvings

Europe and Western Asia in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic 137

Figure 7.14 Photo of a stone sculpture from Lepenski Vir showing a human-like/ fish-like figure displaying human (female) genitalia (Petar Milošević, 2021, CC SA-BY 4.0).

conveyed important information about each household’s position (socioeconomic, sociopolitical, religious) in the settlement. At present, any explanation is equally possible. The anthropomorphic statues raise many interesting questions. Fish were an important subsistence item for the residents at Lepenski Vir. Given that many of

138  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

the statues have a “fishy” look to them, they might represent an association with this important resource—or even the river itself, such as a riverine deity or a spirit that protected this important subsistence resource. Given that some statues appear female and some male, there may have been a belief in several supernatural beings responsible for ensuring the health and vitality of the Danube and its resources. The representation of female genitalia on some of the statues possibly adds the dimension of fertility, or perhaps rebirth, to the belief system. That the house entrances all faced the river could suggest that rebirth and the river were linked in the cosmology. The burials under the floors and in the back of the structures might also conform to a belief in death and rebirth at Lepenski Vir. The placement of neonates at the back of houses may have also represented the idea of protecting or preserving their spiritual essence within the household (Borić and Stefanović 2004). The adults interred near the hearths within homes may have contained individuals important to the lineage such as ancestors or people of special status such as healers, shamans, or other critical figures. The incredible discoveries at the site of Lepenski Vir allow for a highly speculative but fascinating glimpse into a complex belief system among the earliest Neolithic farmers in Eastern Europe. Conclusion The material in this chapter confirms that the residents of Palaeolithic and Neolithic Europe and Western Asia enjoyed rich and complex belief systems. The numerous theories surveyed indicate that there is no scholarly consensus as to what these systems were and what elements of the natural and supernatural world were most crucial to those ancient believers. UP cave paintings of animals may have simply represented the food resource so crucial to a hunting population or far more complex images of shamanic journeys into a spiritual world; in either case, the importance animals played in the UP inhabitants’ world is clear—a sure reflection of their environment and daily concerns. The figurines, initially seeming so easy to interpret, offer perhaps an even greater challenge, with interpretations ranging from toys or teaching dolls to a full-blown mothergoddess religion. Given that women are regularly represented, it is not beyond belief that the figurines expressed something symbolically important to, for, or about women in the UP, though whether this was associated with the fertility of people and the survival of their offspring will probably never be known. The rich symbolism of the material culture at Neolithic sites such as Lepenski Vir and Çatalhöyük led to further speculation about the intersection between human lived experience and the spiritual and physical surrounding these Neolithic inhabitants. They lived at a major turning point in the human career, at the advent of agriculture. As will be seen in coming chapters, this singular human invention was responsible for countless rituals and deities associated with agricultural success through the ages. It is quite possible that residents at sites such as Lepenski Vir and Çatalhöyük were some of the first to realize the importance of ensuring a successful harvest in an uncertain world.

Chapter 8

European Megaliths, Religion, and Power

Megalithic monuments are found all over the world, but perhaps nowhere are they more famous than in England, Ireland, and Western Europe (Figure 8.1); those found in England and Western Europe are the focus of this chapter. Of the many theories that attempt to explain these remarkable places, their use as astronomical devices and symbolic or actual cemeteries for ancestors, and their construction as symbols of power for an emerging Neolithic elite class, may hold up as the most likely explanations. Pre-Megalithic Northwestern Europe Though residents in Southeastern Europe were farming by the sixth millennium bce, the cultivation and domestication of plants did not take hold in the British Iles until a migration of people from France brought agro-pastoralism with them right around 4000 bce (Cummings and Morris 2018). By the early fourth millennium, inhabitants of England were practicing farming and had successfully domesticated animals such as pig, sheep, goat, and cow. In the earlier Neolithic (the early fourth millennium), inhabitants supplemented their diets with some gathering of wild plants and hunting. However, by the later Neolithic (early third millennium) inhabitants depended on farming and animal husbandry almost entirely. Houses in the earlier Neolithic were generally rectangular and timber-built, with thatched roofs. By the later Neolithic, many inhabitants were building more circular rather than rectangular houses and making greater use of stone both in house and furniture construction. In some cases, these circular houses later became tombs, buried under an earthen barrow. The earliest non-stone communal monuments are known as “causewayed enclosures.” Built in clearings of a heavily forested landscape, sometimes atop hills, other times in valleys, these enclosures are defined by a ditch as deep as 2 meters, with breaks to allow passage inside (the “causeway”); the enclosed area is often quite extensive, covering many acres (Figure 8.2). The ditch was cut into

DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-11

140  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

Figure 8.1 Left: Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter. Right: Inset of sites discussed located in the area surrounding Stonehenge in southwestern England (maps by S. R. Steadman).

Figure 8.2 Digital terrain model of hilltop causewayed enclosure at Hambledon Hill, UK (Rouven Meidlinger, 2021, CC BY-SA 4.0).

European Megaliths, Religion, and Power 141

the underlying layer of chalky earth and the excavated material was then piled along the outer edge of the ditch to create a mound or ridge. The vast majority of these causewayed enclosures, more than 80 so far, are found in southern England (and in parts of Europe). Beginning as early as ca. 3800 bce, people began building these earthen monuments, which took generations to complete. Some enclosures showed evidence of an external timber palisade built just beyond the earthen mound. Several early enclosures offered domestic remains and a few architectural remnants, suggesting people may have lived inside them. Animal bones, human bones, stone tools, and pottery have been found in the ditches. The animal bones are not ragged fragments but rather suggest they are the remnants of feasts. The human remains are occasionally in specialized burials; at the Hambledon Hill enclosure, human skulls were buried in the ditches; at the enclosure known as Windmill Hill, evidence of child burials was recovered (Brothwell 1999; Mercer and Healy 2008). Many scholars suggest that the labor invested in creating the causewayed enclosures represents a communal belief system that required temporary gatherings of large groups, perhaps coinciding with funereal events (Neil et al. 2018). Quite often, the human remains were disarticulated, suggesting they had been subjected to excarnation prior to burial (Mercer and Healy 2008). The dead may have been laid in the ditches or left on scaffolding; during the excarnation process, bone may have been scattered into the ditches leading to the disarticulated remains. The animal bones might represent feasting either at the funeral or at some other important event associated with the death process. The location of causewayed enclosures may have been meant to demarcate territories or perhaps highlight the importance of those living within or near the enclosure, representing initial elements of ranking and social stratification. Individuals buried in enclosures apparently resided in the area (Neil et al. 2018); most archaeologists believe that these enclosures served a ritual purpose for the community. Early Neolithic southern England was heavily forested; these enclosures seem to have been built in clearings, which may have represented important symbolic spaces to Neolithic inhabitants, even doorways between the human world and another plane. Feasting suggests important group events, perhaps including the burial of important individuals or in celebration of critical events such as rites of passage; the enclosure boundaries may have served to create a liminal space in which transcendence from one stage of life to the next could be successfully accomplished (Whittle and Pollard 1999). Whatever the function of these causewayed enclosures, they ceased to be built and heavily used after ca. 3000 bce. This coincides with the building of megalithic sites, many of which also included versions of these early earthworks. Early Megaliths: Menhirs The earliest type of megalith is the “menhir,” or the standing stone. Menhirs are erected upright and often tower above the average human; they can weigh many

142  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

tons. Menhirs can stand alone or be part of a patterned grouping. It is difficult to date the erection of a menhir and even harder to divine its purpose. Early explanations attributed these monuments to the Romans, and in the twentieth century, most believed the Celts—specifically, druid priests—were responsible for them. In more recent decades, excavation has determined that the stones were erected long before the Celts or the Romans. Menhirs are found in Scandinavia and the British Isles, but the largest concentration are in Brittany, on the French coast, where their construction began as early as the fifth millennium bce. The most remarkable menhirs are found in the Carnac region of Brittany (Figure 8.3). The two largest menhir complexes in the Carnac area are Kermario and Le Menec which feature over 3,000 standing stones in alignment stretching up to 4 miles. A smaller collection of menhirs is found at nearby Kerlescan, which features several hundred. Landscape archaeology becomes quite useful in the interpretation of menhirs because it allows the archaeologist to look at the entire collection of stones in their setting. For instance, the nearly 1,100 stones in the Le Menec collection begins in 11 rows that stretch nearly a mile. The rows become narrower, and one row is deleted as the stones march eastward. At either end of these rows are the remnants of stone circles that may have once been complete and perhaps demarcated special ritual areas. It is possible that these stone rows were meant to guide a processional of worshippers from one ritual site to the other (Scarre 1998). This seems a good explanation for the smaller collection of stones at Kerlescan

Figure 8.3  Photo of the menhirs at Carnac (Karsten Wentink, 2009, CC BY-SA 4.0).

European Megaliths, Religion, and Power 143

as well. Here, 300 stones, smaller in the east, grow progressively larger as they proceed 355 meters to the west. They stand quite close together in the east but fan out to the west. At the western end of the lines is a three-sided rectangular enclosure delineated by yet more standing stones, and the fourth side is a long mound that contained burials. It is possible, then, that the standing stones created processional ways to sacred places where religious activities took place, perhaps related to ancestor veneration or other rituals associated with kin or clan membership (Figure 8.4). The erection of thousands of stones seems enormous work just to create pathways to ritual areas, so it is quite probable that the stones themselves carried important symbolic meanings. Given that it took centuries to create the stone-filled landscape, it likely that each generation took responsibility for adding to the procession. It is tempting to believe that each stone represented a deceased ancestor, especially as the Kerlescan long mound and its juxtaposition to the standing stones connects the notion of death with the menhirs. The actual meaning of each of the several thousand menhirs at Carnac, however, will remain a most fascinating puzzle for present and future archaeologists.

Figure 8.4 A rtistic reconstruction of ritual event in the midst of the Carnac area megaliths (drawing by L. D. Hackley).

144  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

Henge Sites A henge is an architectural structure, usually circular or ovoid, laid across a landscape (sizes range widely but usually a henge has a diameter of at least 20 meters). Architectural components of a henge might include earthworks such as ditches or mounds and a built boundary of stone, wood, or other material. Two of the best-known henge sites are in England, one at Avebury and the other is Stonehenge. Avebury

Avebury, in southern England, is a henge site that consists of an outer mounded ring of earth with an interior ditch, enclosing stone circles inside. The outer ditch and mound are a type of causewayed enclosure but on a much smaller scale than Windmill Hill (only a couple kilometers northwest of Avebury) or Hambledon Hill. The Avebury region is a chalkland, meaning that deposits underlying the topsoil are chalky white and digging down to them creates a white scar in the earth. In the late fourth millennium bce a house was constructed there; over time, elements of what became the Avebury monument were added (Gillings et al. 2019). The building of the main Avebury henge began around 2500 bce, along with some subsidiary areas mentioned later; it probably took several generations to complete this enormous structure. The incorporation of this early house into the monument suggests a connection between people and place, perhaps establishing the territory of a kinship lineage or recognizing an important personage (Gillings et al. 2019). Avebury is the largest known henge in England, with a diameter of over 400 meters (Figure 8.5); the outermost stone circle consists of nearly 100 menhirs erected just inside the ditch, with two other smaller circles inside the larger one. The Avebury earthen mound and ditch are quite remarkable. Originally 9 meters deep, archaeologists estimate that approximately 4 million cubic feet of earth and chalk were removed to create the ditch (Scarre 1998). The mound that borders the ditch makes it look all the deeper. This was an enormous effort, given that, in 2500 bce, England was a pre-metal culture and tools consisted of wood, animal bone, antler, and stone. Not only did the builders have to dig the ditch and create the mound but they also had to locate, transport, and erect the dozens of stone menhirs in the henge. Clearly the building of Avebury was not only a group effort but one deemed very important. Four entrances into the henge, set on the cardinal points, cut through the ditch and mound. At the bottom of the ditch, archaeologists have discovered human skulls, and in one case, the burial of an adult female. All of these components suggest that the Avebury henge was, at least in part, a place for the dead and that the living could enter the space through the four paths. Archaeologists have also discovered an avenue marked by a parallel line of standing stones, which meanders for 1.5 miles to the south and west and ends on a hilltop at a place

European Megaliths, Religion, and Power 145

Figure 8.5 Top: Photo of Avebury in Wiltshire, England (MikPeach, 2009, CC BY-SA 4.0). Bottom: Photo of Silbury Hill (Immanuel Giel, 2010, in the public domain).

that has come to be known as the “Sanctuary” (Pitts 2000). From this location, one can see the entire region; on this hilltop once stood a stone ring—a type of “fence” with three entrances. An interior stone and wood ring completed the architecture; human remains were buried at the base of several Sanctuary

146  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

megaliths (Pitts 2000). The avenue suggests a formal procession between the large Avebury henge and the Sanctuary, but the direction, frequency, and times of processions is uncertain. One clue is that the northwest entrance to the Sanctuary has a megalith in its center. At the summer solstice, if one stands within the Sanctuary, the sun rises directly over this stone. It is possible the architecture of the Sanctuary was structured to gauge the timing of the summer solstice and possibly initiate a series of ritual activities. A third component to the Avebury complex is Silbury Hill (Figure 8.5), a massive mound of earth, clay, and chalk. This mound stands 37 meters high and has a base diameter of 160 meters. It was built in a series of stages beginning around 3000 bce. It does not appear to contain burials, and its function is not at all clear, but its construction was largely contemporary with the Avebury henge, avenue, and the Sanctuary. Its position at the source of a major river and local springs leads some to suggest that it is associated with the importance of water in an early agricultural community (Field et al. 2014). A little over 8 kilometers to the east is a contemporary similar but smaller earthwork known as Marlborough Mound, also located near a river and springs (Leary et al. 2013), lending support to the importance of mound-building near water sources. Like Avebury itself, the construction of Silbury Hill required enormous effort from many laborers, and so, it must have been of significant import for England’s Neolithic inhabitants. The entire complex may have represented many symbolic beliefs and actions associated with kinship and territorial claims and elements associated with agricultural success, including fresh water and seasonality. Other elements such as ancestor veneration and activities devoted to perceived supernatural beings and elements may have also been at the heart of the enormous human endeavor to create these ancient monuments. Stonehenge

Stonehenge (Figure 8.6), the most famous of henge sites, is in the Salisbury Plain of southern England. The history of Stonehenge stretches back to Mesolithic times, perhaps as early as the ninth millennium bce, when early hunter-gatherers erected massive timbers about 250 meters northwest of where Stonehenge stands today. It appears that this area was considered a sacred place not just by the Neolithic inhabitants of the region but also by those who lived thousands of years before them (Burl 2007). Stonehenge has all the elements of Avebury and more. It has a ditch cut into the underlying chalk layer and a lower mound just outside it with the higher one on the inside; it also has an outer ring of stones inside the ditch and mound. Inside this outer ring is another set of standing stones cut specifically to carry a lintel on top, and inside this secondary ring is yet a third, also bearing lintels. This intricate pattern of stones makes Stonehenge unique among henge sites.

European Megaliths, Religion, and Power 147

Figure 8.6  Photo of Stonehenge (Stephen Inglis/Dreamtimes.com).

Figure 8.7  Sketch of building stages at Stonehenge (drawing by S. R. Steadman).

148  Religions in Europe and Western Asia Stonehenge Building Stages and Materials

Stonehenge was built in stages (Figure 8.7), with Stage 1 consisting of the ditch and mound 110 meters in diameter, beginning around 3100 bce (Darvrill et al. 2012). Two entrances were created, one on the northeast side and another on the opposite side of the circle. Within the earthwork are 56 “Aubrey Holes,” so named for a seventeenth century scholar who investigated Stonehenge. It is possible that some of these holes predate the Stage 1 earthworks; some Aubrey Holes contain the remains of cremated humans (Darvrill et al. 2012). Their purpose is not entirely certain; they may have held wooden posts; some certainly originally contained standing bluestones; others may simply have been for the deposit of human remains or other material culture. In addition to deposition within Aubrey Holes, cremation remains were also inserted into the circular ditch and bank. There is some evidence that temporary wooden structures may have been built within the earthworks at this early stage. Stage 2 commenced around 2760 bce and lasted as long as 400 years. In this stage, the “trilithon horseshoe,” a U-shaped pattern of enormous sarsen stones, was erected in alignment with the sunrise at the mid-summer solstice and midwinter setting of the sun. The grey sarsen stones were almost all quarried from a single location as far as 25 kilometers away (Nash et al. 2020); they reach heights of 9 meters and weigh as much as 40–45 tons. Stage 2 also saw the building of the bluestone circle arrayed around the trilithon (Figure 8.7). The bluestones were brought from Wales, over 210 kilometers away, demonstrating an enormous feat of engineering to transport them to the southwestern region of the island. Some bluestones may have originally stood in the Aubrey Holes. Ringing the bluestones is a circle of some 30 sarsen upright stones topped with 30 additional lintel stones (Darvrill et al. 2012). All but two of the sarsen stones came from the same quarry (Nash et al. 2020). Outside of this are the bluestone Station Stones, which form a rectangular box also built along solstice sightlines; it is possible that the Station Stones served to guide the placement of the interior megaliths. Three final megaliths include two sarsen stones, called the Slaughter Stone and the Heel Stone (36 tons), and a non-sarsen stone known as the Altar Stone, which has a greenish hue and was also transported from Wales. All of these were likely added at some point in the Stage 2 building process. The Heel Stone stands 24 meters from the northeastern entrance to Stonehenge and likely had a role in tracking the summer and winter solstices. In fact, a pathway leading from the Heel Stone heads to the river Avon and is nicely aligned with the summer solstice sunrise. Today, the Altar Stone lies flat, but a great many scholars insist it once stood erect and that one of its important functions was to act as a sighting point to see the midsummer sunrise over the Heel Stone. The Slaughter Stone also lies prone today but once stood upright; it was likely flanked by several other stones missing today. It gained is name in the nineteenth century due to the red-colored iron oxidation on its surface, likely misinterpreted as blood.

European Megaliths, Religion, and Power 149

Stage 3 (ca. 2400–2100 bce) saw a few additions to Stonehenge, including a bluestone circle set within the trilithon. Two more stages at the end of the millennium saw more additions and changes, but the main building of the Neolithic period megalithic monument was completed with the Stage 3 activities. Interpreting Stonehenge

As already noted, the orientation of Stonehenge suggests that tracking important calendrical points during the year was a critical function of this monument. Besides the orientation of the trilithon that aligns with the winter and summer solstices, there is evidence that another stone may have once stood next to the Heel Stone; in this case, the summer solstice sun would have risen between these two megaliths (Darvill 2016). Astronomically based theories have also included the Altar Stone and Slaughter Stone, but their supine position makes analysis of where they actually once stood somewhat uncertain. Another astronomically related aspect of Stonehenge involves the 30 sarsen stone uprights and their lintels, and the Trilithon. The 30 stones might have represented the 30 days in a lunar month, while the five Trilithon stones would account for the “extra” days created by the solstices in the calendar year (Darvill 2022). The Station Stones, of which only two survive, may also serve astronomical functions in addition to their possible use as engineering guides in the construction of the stone circles. Investigations determined that two of the four Station Stones were in rough alignment with the midsummer sunrise, and two were in alignment with seasonal moonsets. However, these stones would have been crude observation points, and in fact, the alignments with these sun and moon rises are slightly off, so astronomical observation was probably not their main purpose. The certain purpose of the Station Stones remains a bit of a mystery, though the setting of a square or rectangle within a circle may have had important symbolic meaning for the Neolithic inhabitants of the region. Circles, expressed in Causewayed Enclosures, passage graves (see the following), and in other earthworks found on the British Isles, seem to have held important meaning for Neolithic inhabitants, perhaps representing wholeness or unity (Leary et  al. 2011). The square, or rectangle, could symbolically represent the four cardinal directions and/or the four seasons (Darvill 2016); given that the Station Stones are inside the circular earthworks, the entire ensemble could represent the unity of the universe including the seasons and the movements of the sun and moon, all critical to successful agriculture. If astronomy and seasonality were the main reason for the construction of Stonehenge, other elements of the megalith such as the Trilithon and the bluestone circles would seem extraneous. The cremations in the Aubrey Holes and the ditches demonstrate that Stonehenge has long been a place of the dead. Some have wondered whether Stonehenge might be a type of monument to ancestors, with the standing stones representing individuals or perhaps the lineage that the ancestors founded (Parker Pearson et al. 2020). Perhaps the larger stones,

150  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

including unique examples such as the Altar Stone and the Slaughter Stone, represented the most powerful or the most ancient of the ancestors. Additionally, the inclusion of stones from two different regions is interesting. Could the sarsen stones represent ancestors of “local” lineages or clans, while the smaller bluestones from Wales represent the arrival of new lineages from afar (Parker Pearson 2013)? Excavations at the bluestone quarry site in Wales demonstrate the stones were all taken from a specific location (Parker Pearson et al. 2015), which may have been an ancestral site for people who then migrated to the Stonehenge region. In fact, archaeological investigation suggests that some or all of the blue stones may have originally been erected in a stone circle site near the Welsh quarry and later moved to Stonehenge (Parker Pearson 2021), perhaps in concert with a kin group taking their ancestors with them. Others have noted that 50 of the 52 sarsen stones came from the same quarry near Stonehenge (Nash et al. 2020); possibly, the two sarsen stones from different areas represent different linages who wished to differentiate themselves from others in the region. Associated with the concept of ancestral embodiment in the megaliths at Stonehenge is the setting of an outer earthen circle, enclosing a rectangle, within which are more circles, and finally, the Trilithon. Perhaps cremations in the Aubrey Holes and the surrounding ditch represented the earliest ancestors who created these earthworks. To interact with the ancestors, the living could enter the earthen circle and approach the appropriate location of the original deposition of the cremated remains. If the sarsen and bluestones represented ancestors, their placement within the earthen circle and Station Stone rectangle may have corresponded to their social status, their identity with the region, or both. Importance or attachment to place may have guided how close to the center the stone was placed, with the Trilithon representing the most powerful of the ancestors. Interestingly, analysis of the supine Altar Stone suggests that it may well have once stood upright in front of the largest of the trilithon stones. In this case, an upright Altar Stone created a space, perhaps even a “sanctum,” at the apex of the trilithon (Burl 2007; Darvill 2016), within which a descendant might interact with venerated ancestors. Ancient Stonehenge may have also served as a pilgrimage destination for healing and overall health. The bluestone quarry location in Wales has, since Medieval times and probably long before that, been associated with healing sources of water in the region (Darvill 2007; Parker Pearson 2013). Though the bluestones do not come from the precise location of the healing springs (Parker Pearson et al. 2015), their origin in a “place of healing” may have been sufficient to make Stonehenge a destination for those seeking greater health. Related to this are studies suggesting that experiencing therapeutic landscapes and engaging in pilgrimages contributes to mental and physical well-being (Darvill et al. 2019). Stonehenge rests near the Avebury complex and the pathway to the river Avon, all of which would create a significant pilgrimage endeavor for the willing.

European Megaliths, Religion, and Power 151 The Builders of Stonehenge

Excavations at Durrington Walls, a henge site just 2 miles northeast of Stonehenge, revealed a massive circle of ditch and earthen mound 500 meters in diameter. Wooden timbers within the ditch aligned the structure with the winter solstice sunrise. Construction on the Durrington Walls monument began at the end of the fourth millennium bce, and activities took place there for at least another 500 years. Nearby is the Durrington Walls settlement. Excavations there revealed domestic structures dating to the mid-third millennium bce, just at the time when the sarsen stones and bluestones were likely being erected at Stonehenge. Each house had an interior hearth to warm residents during cold English winter nights and to cook their food (Parker Pearson et al. 2007); the excavator, using magnetometry, has suggested that there may be many more houses in this community. Oddly, however, this village may have been occupied for as few as 50 years and perhaps for only a decade (Parker Pearson et al. 2020). In addition to these houses, archaeological work has discovered a wide avenue from this village to the Avon River (Parker Pearson et al. 2007). There is no doubt that it was intentionally built as it is stone-paved and cut into the topsoil. This echoes the pathway between Stonehenge and the Avon that is aligned with the summer solstice sunrise. The pathway from Durrington Walls is, instead, aligned with the summer solstice sunset. While the residents of the village at Durrington Walls may have used the henge monument just beyond the doors of their own houses, it appears that

Figure 8.8 A rtist reconstruction of a feast event at the village of Durrington Walls (drawing by L. D. Hackley).

152  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

building Stonehenge may have been their primary occupation. Analysis of the materials at the Durrington Walls village suggest that feasting, especially on pig meat and particularly during the winter months, was a regular activity (Craig et al. 2015). Perhaps after the erection of sarsen stones or bluestones on cold winter days, rewarding feasts awaited the builders living in the village (Figure 8.8). Also noteworthy is the apparent lack of burial or cremation remains at Durrington Walls and a lack of feasting activity at Stonehenge. The proximity of the two henge sites and their pathways to the river aligned with the solstices has led some to suggest that both formed part of an entire sacred complex, celebrating life (Durrington Walls) and death (Stonehenge). Perhaps the feasting and a midwinter celebration recognized life and vitality, while the stones and cremations at Stonehenge were markers for the concept of the ancestral dead. While the residents of Durrington Walls may have taken part in ritual pilgrimages, including visits to Avebury and its environs, the nearby river Avon, and Stonehenge, it appears that, once the Stage 2 erection of megaliths at Stonehenge was finished, their work was complete and they dispersed back to their original homes, likely not realizing that their incredible feats would be the focus of scholars forevermore. The Long Barrow Builders Long barrows are earthen mounds that cover burial chambers. Britain and Ireland are dotted with these burial places. The West Kennet long barrow is one of eight that lie near Avebury and Stonehenge, and there are others that are even larger in other regions of southern England. This long barrow was built around 3600 bce (Bayliss et al. 2007) and had five burial chambers built of stone. Four flanked a passage, two on each side, with the fifth at the end of the passage (Figure 8.9); these are accessed by a doorway blocked by massive menhirs. A total of 46 people were interred in these chambers; skeletons were not articulated, and only portions of the remains made it into the tomb. This suggests the deceased were left out in the elements for de-fleshing, and the bones were then collected for interment (Scarre 1998), during which time some bones were apparently lost. There was some thought put into the placement of individuals in the tomb chambers. In the chamber at the end of the passage, only adult males were found, while both adult males and females were found in the two chambers across from each other nearest the back cell. In the two outer chambers, younger individuals had been interred. The mound built above the burial chambers stretches far longer than the underground burial hall itself. The mound rises from the surrounding region, easily visible and flat enough on top to support activities if they took place above the chamber beneath. Several other interesting aspects about West Kennet are notable. First, the barrow was dug into cultivatable land, which would seem to diminish the land available to farmers. This suggests that it was important to place the tomb in

European Megaliths, Religion, and Power 153

Figure 8.9 Sketch plan of the West Kennet tomb (drawing by S. R. Steadman).

this area rather than on nonarable land. Secondly, West Kennet was used as a burial chamber for a number of centuries, perhaps indicating that those interred in West Kennet were kin related, making West Kennet the “family vault.” What is of interest, however, is the low number of burials; only 46 individuals were placed in the tomb over a course of several hundred years. Clearly, some were singled out for burial in the stone-built tomb and others were buried or cremated elsewhere. West Kennet is not alone. There are numerous long barrow tombs in southern England, and many other types of tombs are found throughout England and Ireland, including circular chambered tombs and tombs with smaller, multiple “stalls” rather than chambers. Each region seems to have had a particular style of tomb, but all required a fair amount of labor, and most received multiple interments over time. Why Build Megalithic Monuments? Some of the theories for monuments such as Carnac, Avebury, and Stonehenge have already been advanced. One persistent question is why residents of these regions went to such effort to build these monuments. Why stone—and why huge stones? Wouldn’t wooden fences work just as well at Carnac? Wooden timbers were once used at Stonehenge and Durrington Walls; why not continue to use these? Some long barrows had wood-built chambers; why did most feel the need to build family tombs with stone? Archaeologists recognize the enormous

154  Religions in Europe and Western Asia

labor invested in building these monuments—and the hundreds or even thousands of people involved—and acknowledge that these ancient cultures must have felt that permanent and extraordinary monuments needed to be erected. The question is, for what purposes? One argument for the creation of these impressive monuments is that they served to highlight the power some had over others; that is, smaller groups of people who could marshal larger groups to engage in the labor needed to build these monuments. Smaller groups wielding that power might be described as elite family or lineage leaders (Hayden 2003). As Neolithic residents settled into permanent towns and population began to increase, some families may have grown more wealthy and powerful than others. These more fortunate residents may have attributed their success to their ancestors, occasioning elaborate celebrations of deceased kin and the need to construct suitable resting places for family leaders. It is possible that the most powerful leaders were even considered semi-divine, explaining why they or their descendants could co-opt so many participants into building these megalithic structures (Hayden 2003). In this case, powerful families may have made the case that their own ancestors were capable of looking after not only their own living descendants but everyone in the town or region, making the actual ancestors of one family the symbolic ancestors of everyone. At important times of the year, including the solstices, feasting, both in sacred spaces such as Avebury and Stonehenge as well as inside the tomb, took place. These feasts may have honored both the agricultural cycle and the ancestors responsible for ensuring a successful harvest. The small and cramped quarters inside the tombs suggests that only a few individuals feasted inside with their ancestors; perhaps the ancestor’s descendant family leaders were the only ones allowed into the family vault (in which only leaders and their families may have been interred). Used for centuries, tombs may have been filled and closed permanently only when that family or lineage died out (Hayden 2003). Everyone could participate in the feasts at the sacred sites such as Carnac, Avebury, or Stonehenge; perhaps their right to take part in rituals stemmed from their participation in the building of one or more of the monuments. The cremations and burials at sites such as Avebury and Stonehenge may have been those of family leaders, soon to become ancestors, of non-elite residents who did not have the resources to build elaborate stone tombs. The construction of these monuments would have served several purposes: It honored the ancestors of the powerful (and possibly divine) families, benefiting everyone; it demonstrated the power of the elites to control resources and labor; it demonstrated the wealth of the elites in their ability to build enormous structures for all to see, and possibly to use; and it bound communities together in a united belief system. With everyone cooperating to build these impressive monuments, all could feel assured that the ancestors, and perhaps other supernatural beings also worshipped at these sites, were pleased with their human charges. In

European Megaliths, Religion, and Power 155

this explanation, the Neolithic megaliths of Britain and France are perfect examples of the successful combination of religion and power. Conclusion The monuments and megaliths discussed here are only a few of the many that can be found across the breadth of Britain and Ireland and in many areas on the Western European mainland. Not covered here are the amazing monuments in the Boyne Valley of Ireland, including Newgrange and Knowth. The reasons for building these enduring structures are likely as myriad as their styles and shapes. Astronomical observations were clearly important, as were processions to important ritual sites where feasting and other activities took place. However, the ubiquitous burial sites, with selected individuals interred in elaborate tombs, suggests that ancestor veneration was an extremely important aspect of Neolithic religion and ritual. The power of the ancestors and their living descendants may have been at the heart of the construction of these monuments—testaments to the strength of fervent belief to create an extraordinary landscape.

Part IV

Religions in the Americas

Chapter 9

The Mound-Building Cultures of North America

As discussed in Chapter 5, there is substantial evidence for Paleoamerican presence at sites spanning the region from Montana to Texas not long after 13.5 kya. The Paleoamerican period dates from the early stages of settlement until approximately 8000 bce when the Archaic period begins, following this earliest human occupation of the Americas, and lasting until about 3,000 years ago. It is during the Archaic period that several species of plants, including squash, sunflowers, and other seed plants, were domesticated, with maize also becoming an important crop a bit later. Early Mound-Building Cultures Dating human-built mounds, especially if they do not contain burials or organic remains within them deposited by the builders, can be a challenging endeavor. In this section, some of the earliest-known mound cultures are discussed, though new discoveries continually adjust our understanding and dating of the moundbuilding traditions on the North American continent. Poverty Point

Even though some populations were in the process of cultivating plants in the late Archaic period, other residents were content to continue a foraging-based economy. The residents at the site known as “Poverty Point,” in the lower Mississippi Valley in Louisiana, practiced a mainly foraging economy and yet lived in semi-sedentary villages and engaged in extensive regional trade (Figure 9.1). Residents at Poverty Point also engaged in the construction of earthworks. Although not the earliest, the mounds at Poverty Point are the largest in the later Archaic period. Construction of the central Poverty Point earthworks began as early as 1800 bce and continued for hundreds of years; some of the mounds surrounding the site may have been constructed centuries earlier (Ortmann 2010). During occupation of Poverty Point, residents constructed a complex of earthworks, moving hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of earth (Ortmann and DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-13

160  Religions in the Americas

Figure 9.1 M ap of sites and regions discussed in the chapter (map by S. R. Steadman and T. Edwards).

Kidder 2013). Poverty Point’s location on the Macon River allowed for trade; stone artifacts were made of materials from sources over 600 kilometers away. It appears that the stone, including chert, steatite, jasper, hematite, and slate, arrived in raw form and was then worked into tools, animal-shaped amulets (especially birds), and jewelry by Poverty Point residents. The earthworks at the site fall into two main categories: Seven individual mounded structures, five are known as Mounds A through E (Figure 9.2), plus Lower Jackson Mound and Motley Mound; and a set of six semi-circular concentric ridges, broken into sections (Figure 9.2). This complex is spread across a 3 kilometer area; post holes, hearths, and other domestic materials suggest that residents may have

The Mound-Building Cultures of North America 161

Figure 9.2 Left: Sketch plan of Poverty Point (drawing by S. R. Steadman). Right: Aerial photograph of the Poverty Point mounds, taken in 1938 (Army Corps of Engineers, public domain).

lived atop the concentric ridges (Gibson 2000; Ortmann 2010). West of the ridges is Mound A, a large, unusually shaped feature attached to the ridges by a long ramp. Someone standing on top of this mound can see the sun rise over the river and ridged mounds on the vernal and autumnal equinoxes; it would be quite a coincidence if this was simply accidental. It is estimated that the building of Mound A took place quite rapidly, perhaps within just a few months, requiring between 1,000 and 3,000 laborers who moved nearly 240,000 m3 of earth (Spivey et al. 2015). Excavations and the erosional process affecting the mounds has revealed that they were created by individual baskets of clay and dirt, an endeavor requiring a great deal of organization and dedication. The enormous investment of labor at this settlement indicates that earthworks were essential components in this later Archaic culture’s societal beliefs and ideology. Some argue that the process of constructing the mounds at Poverty Point, rather than their “purpose,” was the functional ritual act (Ortmann and Kidder 2013). Another argument suggests that Poverty Point was a pilgrimage destination, which would explain the differing mounds and perhaps the rapid construction of ones such as Mound A (Spivey et  al. 2015). Whether they were built for purely cosmological purposes, to allow distant inhabitants to come together for both pilgrimage or trade,

162  Religions in the Americas

or to demonstrate the emergent ability of some to control the labor of others– or a combination of all of these–will likely remain largely uncertain. The Adena

The Adena cultural complex (ca. 1000 bce–200 ce) in the Ohio River Valley engaged in long-distance trade networks, exchanging everything from stone tools to copper artifacts. The Adena culture, named for the estate on which a site was excavated in the early twentieth century, was cultivating food plants and using pottery containers, all suggesting that residence was at least partially sedentary (Topping 2010). Some of the most evocative artifacts associated with the Adena culture are their stone “effigy pipes,” demonstrating the practice of smoking tobacco, probably in ceremonial contexts. Known pipes are in the shape of humans (Figure 9.3). The tobacco used at this earlier time was considerably stronger than

Figure 9.3 P hoto of an Adena period pipe in the shape of a human being, on display at the Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio (Tim Evanson, 2016, CC BY-SA 2.0).

The Mound-Building Cultures of North America 163

varieties today and was capable of producing a significant narcotic effect. Pipes, discovered in burial mounds, may be indicative of shamanistic practices, or at the very least, of ritual activities using tobacco. Adena mounds consist of large burial mounds and earthen enclosures near which settlements were located. Earthen enclosures were made by piling up basketfuls of soil in circles, squares, and even in a type of pentagon shape; others were irregularly shaped, following the ridge line of hills. The soil came from the interior of the enclosures, making them look moat- or pool-like on the inside. The interior of these earthen enclosures was not occupied and may have been more ceremonial in nature. The burial mounds contained, in most cases, multiple burials, some in simple graves, others in log coffins or tombs that could hold several people (Milner 2005). Many of the exchanged goods were found in these burials, presumably as burial gifts, and some individuals had been sprinkled with ochre. Also buried in these mounds were cremations. Burial mounds grew up “organically” in that, as more burials were interred, the mound grew bigger. Smaller mounds often contained only one or a few individuals. Some mounds were built over Adena-period circular or rectangular buildings, which did not serve a domestic purpose and appear to have been rituals areas (Purtill et al. 2014), perhaps devoted to burial activities. The differentiation in large versus smaller mounds and the decision regarding location (inside earthen enclosures or not) raise questions still to be answered. It is possible that, as the Adena culture became more involved in long-distance trade and expanded cultivation, the advent of a type of territoriality initiated the burial of powerful family members in places that would establish control of an area (Yerkes 1988). Whether for power and control, purely religious reasons, or a combination of these, the Adena culture firmly entrenched mound-building as a mainstay of Native American ritual behavior for centuries to come. Effigy Mounds

During the Adena and Hopewell (see the following) periods, people constructed thousands of “effigy mounds” on the mid-continental landscape, often in the form of animals such as reptiles, bears, and birds. Mounds usually occur in groups and are frequently located on higher ground near water sources (Topping 2010). Dating these features has been difficult (e.g., Lepper et al. 2019), and often it is uncertain to which culture they should be attributed or what their purpose might have been. In the state of Iowa, six mounded bears in the “Marching Bear Group,” constructed around 1,000  years ago, march along a hilltop (Figure 9.4). In Wisconsin, some mounds appear to feature lizards or turtles; bird effigy mounds are found in Wisconsin and neighboring states. One of the bestknown and largest of these animal-shaped mounds is “Serpent Mound” in the state of Ohio (Figure 9.4). Nearly 1,350 feet in length, it shows a partially coiled snake poised to consume a circular object.

164  Religions in the Americas

Figure 9.4 Left: Drawing of the Serpent Mound in 1848 (from Squier and Davis 1848: Plate XXXV; public domain). Right: Lidar image of the Marching Bears Mound Group, Effigy Mounds National Monument (Iowa) (US National Park Service, US Geological Survey, 2014, public domain).

The purpose of effigy mounds is intensely debated. A few have burials within them or nearby, but this is not standard practice. Others contain material culture (stone tools, trade items). Given that these, like other mounds, were built basketful by basketful, they must have held substantial symbolic importance for their creators. Mounds may have venerated the spirits of the local wildlife, which possibly served as totemic symbols or represented important myths associated with the indigenous populations that lived in the region; they may perhaps have portrayed a multi-layered cosmos of upper world (e.g., birds) and lower world (e.g., snakes) (Lepper 2020; Lepper et al. 2018; Topping 2010). They may have indicated seasonality, noting the appearance and movements of animals. They may have also served socioeconomic and sociopolitical functions, marking territories or highlighting the importance of elites and leaders. They remain remarkable earthen images to strongly held beliefs among the inhabitants of hundreds of years ago. The Hopewell Tradition The Hopewell tradition, named after a site excavated in Ohio, possesses all the elements of the Adena but in much greater size and quantity. Again, like the

The Mound-Building Cultures of North America 165

Adena, the term “Hopewell” refers to an ensemble of many cultures, spread throughout the middle of the North American continent, that interacted through trade and the exchange of ideologies. Dates for the material culture range from approximately 100 bce to around 500 ce (known as the “Middle Woodland” period); the Hopewell core area encompasses the states of Ohio and Illinois, but elements associated with the Hopewell cultural complex are found from the Great Lakes region to the Gulf of Mexico (Milner 2005). Hopewell metallurgists were expert metalworkers, producing gorgets and chest ornaments, many in animal motifs. The Hopewell cultural complex is best known, however, for mound-building projects at sites such as Mound City, Hopewell, Fort Ancient, and the Newark earthworks. Hopewell settlements were located away from the mounds, along the rivers and waterways, which also served as the byways for the movement of goods. Houses, constructed of posts and covered with a variety of organic materials, tended to be oval or round in shape, but some were rectangular. Hopewell residents cultivated a variety of plants supplemented by the gathering of wild species. Hunting provided meat, most prominently deer, but other animals, including waterfowl and freshwater fish, also comprised their diet. These small settlements appear to have built smaller mounds nearby and larger ones in cooperation with other communities or even with those who came from afar for the purpose of mound-building (Abrams 2009; Lynott 2015). These collective cooperative communities may have been part of local polities (political units) that were connected by economic ties or kinship relationships. The organization needed to construct Hopewell earthworks, direct the lively exchange system, and make the stunning examples of burial and exchange goods made of copper and stone suggest that there was some type of ranked system with established leaders. Much discussion has focused on whether leadership was rooted in kinship lines or based on specialized societal positions such as shaman-leaders or whether more corporate or heterarchical systems were in place (Carr and Case 2005; Henry and Barrier 2016). The labor investment in the burial mounds may also suggest a practice of ancestor veneration that would support kin-based and social hierarchical ranking, but this is only speculative. Hopewell earthworks included large, square, circular, octagonal, or generally geometrical enclosures inside which were sometimes burial mounds, inner earth works, and open ground suitable for ceremonial activities (Figure 9.5). In many cases, circle and square mounds are located near one another, sometimes connected by a causeway. Some form complexes of mounds and earthworks that extend for several miles. Astonishingly, many of these circles, separated by hundreds of kilometers, are of exactly the same size and dimensions; in addition, groupings of earthworks could have been “nested” in that one would fit perfectly inside the other (Romain 2000). It is clear that Hopewell architects had a very firm grasp of geometry and built these structures with certain principles in mind. Researchers have also noticed the intersection between these earthworks

166  Religions in the Americas

Figure 9.5 Sketch of two causewayed enclosure Hopewell sites: At the top is “High Bank Works” and at the bottom is “Hopeton Earthworks,” both located in the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park in central Ohio (drawing by S. R. Steadman, after Squier and Davis 1848: plates XVI and XVII).

and astronomical mechanics (Romain 2015). Precise measurements of relatively undamaged mounds and earthworks reveal that, from certain locations, one can observe the rising and setting of the moon according to a lunar calendar as well as watch the winter solstice sunset (Hively and Horn 1984; Romain 2000). Such research suggests that at least one important function served by these earthworks was observation of the lunar cycle, likely an important factor in a society moving steadily toward a reliance on agriculture. A Hopewell desire to observe the sky and track the movements of the sun, moon, and stars explains the need to build mounds but not their placement or the associated geometrical enclosures. Large areas within the enclosures may have served as meeting places for ceremonies and rituals and perhaps trade and social engagements (Lynott 2015; Ruby 2019). Another strong argument suggests that location was as important as the earthworks themselves, marking sacred places

The Mound-Building Cultures of North America 167

where one might be closer to the spiritual plane or where mythological events took place (Romain 2015). It is possible that the symbolic meanings attributed to squares and circles by present-day Native Americans is relevant (DeBoer 1997). In many cultures, winter structures tend to be circular, while summer houses are rectangular, expressing a type of duality with regard to season. Hopewell earthworks built in the summer may have been square, and those in the winter, round; burials in each season were perhaps located in or near appropriate earthworks. The octagonal shapes might therefore have been inter-seasonal, built on the cusp of change between “summer” and “winter.” Also drawing on Native American beliefs, in which the earth is envisioned as circular, another researcher suggests that the square earthworks are representative of the sky, and circular ones denote the earth (Romain 2000, 2015). Two types of artifacts regularly found in Hopewell burials are platform pipes and beaten copper ornaments. Platform pipes are also known as “effigy” pipes because they often feature an animal form perched on top of the pipe’s platform (Figure 9.6). Usually, the animal faces the smoker, but occasionally, it faces outwards. The tobacco most likely smoked in these pipes was capable of producing trance states (Brown 1997). If the pipes were viewed as the vehicle through which the shaman (or smoker) achieved trance and entry into the spiritual realm, then the animal effigies, including frogs, panthers, birds, beavers, and other creatures of the region may have represented the spirit guides particular to the shaman utilizing that pipe (Brown 1997). Pipes in human form are rare, but those discovered seem to be represented in association with animals or with other shamanistic characteristics (Carr and Case 2005), perhaps suggesting shamanic transformation. Another possibility is the dual role these pipes might have played

Figure 9.6 Left: Owl effigy pipe from the Hopewell culture (Dayton Art Institute, Wmpearl, 2015, CC BY-SA 1.0). Right: Raven effigy pipe from the Hopewell culture (Hopewell Culture National Historic Park; Rdkeman, 2006, CC BY-SA 3.0).

168  Religions in the Americas

in both religion and diplomacy. The quarries that supplied stone material were sometimes quite distant from the final deposition of the effigy pipe (Emerson et al. 2013; Farnsworth et al. 2021). Hopewell peoples, due to their long-distance trade network, may have needed to engage in regular interactions with traders and middlemen, negotiate disputes between villages and regions, or take part in ritual ceremonies cementing relationships. Possibly, these effigy pipes served as “peace” pipes during negotiations, (Hall 1977, 1997), presenting beautiful craftmanship but also providing a religious overtone to every interaction. Hopewell copper objects and ornaments have added tremendously to our understanding of trade patterns, since sourcing analyses can trace the movement of these items from their original ore source to their final destination (Seeman et al. 2019). However, the meaning of these copper items is far from clear. Some Hopewell people wore copper ear spools, which may have been a signifier of their social or kinship status (Carr 2005). That some mirror the types of animals found on effigy pipes suggests a spiritual basis for interpretation; they may have functioned in similar fashion to the platform pipes, calling to or representing important animal spirits during religious ceremonies (Milner 2005) or serving as part of the shaman’s paraphernalia. However, this leaves unexplained those that are fashioned in human images, unless they were meant to represent the human (shaman?) undertaking the spiritual journey. Since the majority of Hopewell residents were cremated, those who were buried in mounds received specialized treatment. Even within the mounds, there are different levels of labor associated with various burials. Some mounds were built atop charnel houses. Huts were erected for the dead in which cremated remains and uncremated bodies were placed. Once the building was full, it was burned down, and an earthen mound was built over it. Other mounds had “tombs” at their base—wooden boxes into which one or a few burials were placed. Other burials were placed on top of or beside the tomb and eventually earth was mounded over the entire collection. Who was buried in these mounds? Almost certainly, they were special individuals given the labor that went into the construction of their burial mounds and the goods in them, including animal bones, shell beads, stone and copper tools, effigy pipes, and copper ornaments. What types of individuals required such elaborate and richly adorned burials? Those buried in the mounds may have been important members of kin groups who then became “revered ancestors.” Another theory suggests that social groups, perhaps kin-based, competed for power over territory, trade connections, and perhaps even control of the religion within Hopewell culture. Those buried within the mounds, with remarkable burial goods, may have been those who had gained status and power. One study of the burials themselves suggests that there was a hierarchy of important individuals buried in the mounds; tomb types were ranked from one to six, one being the most labor intensive (the wooden tombs) and six being the simple burial in the surface of an already constructed mound. Burials in “Type 1” tombs had less joint wear and disease than those in other

The Mound-Building Cultures of North America 169

tombs, indicating they did less of the manual labor in the society (Tainter 1980). This might indicate a higher status in which elites were released from the normal daily duties everyone else carried out. Perhaps those in the Type 1 tombs were leaders, elders, the shamans, or a combination of these. The presence of unusual items such as animal remains from birds, bobcats, and bears, along with effigy pipes and other materials, suggests that at least some mound burials did contain religious specialists such as shamans. An innovative explanation suggests that the human remains in some of the mound burials, particularly those that appear to have been placed in attitudes of dance, represent sacred stories carried into the next plane of existence (Carr and Novotny 2015). In this way, Hopewell shamans would continue their work for the people even after they had passed to a different realm. The Hopewell had a rich and complex belief system, much of which remains to be revealed. The Mississippian Culture Although the Hopewell complex had faded by the middle of the first millennium, the practice of mound-building had not. The “Mississippian Culture,” spread along the Mississippi River in a region known as the “American Bottom,” had a much greater dependence on maize agriculture than previous cultures. Inhabitants were more sedentary and therefore able to store greater amounts of surplus foods. The stability of a reliable food source allowed for larger population centers to emerge in the Mississippian period (ca. 1000–1400 ce). By 1050 ce, a number of Mississippian culture settlements were spread along the Mississippi River, including the sites of Lohmann, BBB Motor, and Sponemann (Figure 9.1). The best-known Mississippian site is the large center known as Cahokia, located across the river from St. Louis, in southern Illinois. It features a complex of plazas, ceremonial and burial mounds, walls and palisades, and residential areas that sprawl across well over 12 square kilometers. Cahokia rests in the American Bottom, where three major rivers—the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Illinois—all come together. This is a lush area thick with flora and fauna. In addition, the rivers allowed for extensive travel and trade; artifacts are made of materials that come from the Great Lakes, the southeastern coastal region, the upper Midwest, and from the Gulf Coast. It is an ideal location for settlement, and the Cahokians took full advantage of their landscape in order to build a spectacular center. Before the major construction of Cahokia (ca. 900 ce), Mississippian residents built small, rectangular pole and thatch huts arranged around central courtyards (Alt 2018). They had access to communal storage pits in courtyards where ceremonial events may have also taken place (Mehrer 1995). Settlement structures and burials appear to have been deliberately situated in alignment with solar and lunar events and with critical water sources (Pauketat 2013). As time passed and population and social complexity increased, larger and more

170  Religions in the Americas

well-built rectangular and circular structures included sizable internal and exterior storage pits, also in similar alignments. Communities grew in size, with some towns building mounds and small ceremonial areas. In rural areas, one homestead served as a “nodal household,” larger, with extensive open areas suitable for hosting a large gathering of people for ceremonies or other public events (Mehrer 1995; Emerson 1997a). Many residents moved to centers, particularly Cahokia, creating densely populated neighborhoods outside Cahokia’s “downtown” region (Alt 2018). At the height of the Mississippian period (1050–1250 ce), settlement structure consisted of a few large “temple towns” such as Cahokia, smaller ceremonial towns, such as BBB Motor, Sponemann and the Emerald site (Pauketat et al. 2017), and smaller outlier communities of dispersed farmsteads with nodal households (Topping 2010). These outlying communities were probably important suppliers of subsistence products to the temple towns, but in other ways, appear to have functioned with a fair amount of autonomy. The nodal households served as locales for ceremony, perhaps alleviating residents from having to travel to distant centers such as Cahokia. Residents of the nodal households demonstrated greater wealth in the size and outfitting of their domestic structures, reflective of their sociopolitical, economic, and apparently religious role in their community. The formative years of the Mississippian period clearly reveal an increasingly complex social system with religious, political, and economic power being consolidated into fewer hands and larger settlements (Emerson 1997a; Alt 2018; Pauketat 1998). Most scholars have come to believe that the “temple towns” such as Cahokia constitute North America’s earliest chiefdom (Emerson 1997b; Milner 1998). The Cahokia complex includes nearly 120 earthen mounds, many with burials, others supporting buildings; alignment with solstices and equinoxes appears to have been an important element of construction, as it was in earlier mound cultures from Poverty Point onward. At the center of the settlement is a plaza surrounded by a wooden palisade supplied with guard towers built at intervals along the wall; besides its defensive role, it also served to control public access to the plaza, apparently keeping unwanted visitors out. This palisade took enormous effort to build. The entire structure consisted of approximately 20,000 wooden poles requiring more than 150,000 human-hours to build; this means that nearly 2,000 people, working all day long, would need at least a week to build the palisade. Clearly some individuals within the Cahokian society were able to command large amounts of labor for significant periods of time. Inside the central plaza was “Monks Mound,” the largest earthen structure in pre-colonial North America (Figure 9.7). The plaza also contained other mounds, some conical, some with a square base and shaped like pyramids; residential structures likely belonging to Cahokian elites and religious personnel rested on flat-topped mounds (Alt et al. 2010). Other mounds within the plaza supported buildings that were public or religious in nature, apparently for the exclusive use of those who lived inside the plaza walls.

The Mound-Building Cultures of North America 171

Figure 9.7 Top: Aerial view of Monks Mound (US National Archives and Records Administration, public domain). Bottom: Artistic rendering of “Monk’s Mound” and the Cahokian center (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

Another set of features inside the Cahokian center were woodhenges. These consisted of wooden poles erected in a circular form; one henge had one pole in the middle. The number of poles in each henge (five have been discovered) was based on multiples of 12: one had 24 poles; another, 36; then, 48; one with 60; and the smallest only had 12 posts. The function of these woodhenges appears to

172  Religions in the Americas

have been astronomical, as the summer and winter solstice sun can be seen rising over the central pole. Like the henge monuments in Britain, these woodhenges probably served to mark important points on the agricultural calendar (Pauketat 1994). The number 12 was likely meaningful in timekeeping; it may have also functioned as a sacred number in Mississippian cosmology. The woodhenges must have served some important service, as the effort needed to construct and maintain them was not insubstantial. These woodhenges and the alignments of many mounds at Cahokia and other sites such as BBB Motor and Emerald, in which mounds and structures are in solar and lunar alignment (Pauketat 2013), suggest the importance of the seasonal, and thus agricultural, calendar. Burials in Mississippian mounds suggest significant social stratification, featuring numerous and valuable grave goods such as marine shell beads, copper and mica items, and chert tools and weapons made of materials derived from long-distance sources. Some graves included non-utilitarian items that may have had ritual significance, such as rattles, copper plates made to look like turtle carapaces, and stone ornaments. Certain mounds appear to have belonged to kin groups who had the right to be buried there, such as those created by the collective burials of various individuals over time, eventually creating one giant mound. One mound held several hundred individuals (Milner 1998). Other mounds were large but held only one or two individuals, perhaps indicating their greater importance. Burials of lower status people were found in simple mounds in town but also out on the riverine floodplain. The rare burial gifts in these lower status graves included utilitarian items such as pottery or tools. Cahokian elites appear to have controlled decisions regarding life and death, perhaps in association with the lunar calendar (Pauketat 2013). In one burial collection known as Mound 72, more than 270 interments, many in mass burials, took place between 1000–1150 ce. One of the most remarkable burials is known as the “Beaded Burial,” which consists of two people, one male and one female, one on top of the other, wound within a “cape” consisting of 20,000 shell beads laid out in the form of a raptor-like bird (Emerson et al. 2016). Interestingly, the female appears to have come from a region outside of Cahokia (Hedman and Hargrave 2018), perhaps representing a pairing of elites to cement long-distance relations. Other burials flanked these high-status elites, perhaps their servants or family members. Nearby, seven more adults were buried with a collection of grave goods including shell beads, copper items, and stone tools; the deposition of a collection of over 36,000 beads of shell and copper and hundreds of tools and weapons was also found in this mound. At some point following the Beaded Burial, 24 individuals, mostly women, were interred, all under the age of 25; these were likely part of a sacrificial event (Topping 2010). Another burial consisted of four adult males, aligned to the cardinal directions, who had been beheaded and behanded. Adjacent to the burial of males was a mass grave consisting of 53 individuals, primarily females but including males under 30 years of age, who were laid in two layers.

The Mound-Building Cultures of North America 173

Bio-archaeological analysis suggests these people were local to the Cahokian region, and they may have been executed in a sacrificial event (Topping 2010; Thompson et al. 2015). In the next generation, another set of at least 50 more burials of young people, including children, both male and female, exhibited evidence of having been bound at the time of burial; a few had been decapitated (Topping 2010). It is unclear how sacrificial victims were chosen and which Cahokian elites were deserving of such accompaniment at death. What is clear is that a society in which human sacrifice could be commanded by a few is one in which the elite class wields a substantial level of power. Construction began on the base of Monks Mound by 900 ce; it is roughly square and covers about 14 acres. It has four levels that give it a height of approximately 100 feet, each constructed separately over a period of several hundred years. It is possible that each terrace was added at the time as the accession of a new ruler or a change in dynasty. Monks Mound (named so due to the nineteenth-century occupation by a group of Trappist monks on its summit) would have required well over one million 5-hour days of labor to construct its over 20 million cubic feet of volume (Milner 1998). It, like the palisade, demonstrates the ability to control labor as a resource. On the highest level of Monks Mound was a wooden building measuring approximately 100 × 50 feet. This may have been a ceremonial center where the leader or religious officials performed rituals or other duties related to Cahokian religion. Without written texts, the certainly complex Cahokian belief system can only be described in broad strokes of the archaeological paintbrush. Landscape archaeology, careful analysis of Mississippian artifacts, and ethnographic information from eastern Woodlands and southeastern Native American cosmologies, leads us to some insights into Mississippian beliefs. Drawing on present-day Native American beliefs, archaeologists suggest Mississippian cosmology featured a “quadripartite” cosmology, in which the world is viewed as four-sided and fourquartered, divided by symbolic axes that run either on the cardinal points (i.e., north to south, east to west) or slightly off these points, creating diamond-shaped quadrants (Emerson 1997a). Such beliefs would explain the shape of the Mississippian mounds with squared bases, though their tops had a variety of shapes. The large central plaza at Cahokia, laid out on a north/south, east/west orientation is, itself, four-sided with Monks Mound resting at its northern end. Three additional small plazas, outside the palisade (simply named North, West, and East Plaza), are also four-sided. The exact meaning of the quadripartite symbolism escapes inquiry, but a connection between the creation of the world and this four-sidedness is not unrealistic. The quadripartite mounds and plazas represent a “horizontally based” cosmological symbolism, while the height of the mounds offer a vertical aspect in Mississippian beliefs. Again, relying on ethnographic data, archaeologists familiar with Mississippian settlements suggest that mound culture cosmology featured a system of layered worlds, including an upper, lower, and middle

174  Religions in the Americas

world (Emerson 1997a). Standing in the midst of the Cahokian center, a person could visually experience both vertical and horizontal Mississippian cosmology (Emerson and Pauketat 2008). The vertical cosmology may have also been reflective of the social hierarchy, the upper social stratum embodied by elites, nobles, and religious specialists who were closest spatially (i.e., living on top of mounds) and spiritually to the upper world. Many Mississippians probably lived in the middle (earthly) world, with houses on ground level at Mississippian centers, while others resided in the lower “bottom lands” of outlying regions near the rivers. Perhaps individuals ranged in “levels” both spiritually and socially. Other aspects of Mississippian religion seem to have focused on human activities, namely agriculture. Agricultural symbolism seems more closely linked to non-elite farmers in Mississippian society—the same individuals who lived in the lower “bottom lands” of the earth and perhaps closer to the lower layer. Discoveries of Mississippian figurines have gone far in helping to substantiate these interpretations. In particular, there seems to have been an “agriculture cult” that was, perhaps, the most widely spread element in the Mississippian belief system, spanning all levels of society. A focus on agriculture and fertility is supported by the Mississippian red stone figurines, often discovered in burials and temple mounds (Emerson 2022). One, known as the “Birger” figurine (Figure 9.8), represents important symbolic notions of what may be the lower world and its constituent elements, including serpent monsters, water, and fertility. The Birger figurine female kneels on

Figure 9.8 Drawing of the red stone Birger figurine (drawing by R. Jennison).

The Mound-Building Cultures of North America 175

a circular base with one hand on a feline-headed snake; the other holds a hoe that touches the snake’s back. The snake’s body transforms into vines that issue gourds near the woman’s feet and at her shoulder. This combination of images suggests that water (the snake represents a water “serpent” in Native American cosmology), vine, gourds, and hoe portray the agricultural cycle, and the form of the kneeling woman may embody earthen fertility (an “Earth Mother”) (Emerson 1997b). The Birger figurine is joined by others depicting similar motifs of females, serpents, plants, and the growing cycle (Emerson 2022; Emerson and Boles 2010). Several clearly represent corn stalks rather than gourds, suggesting a “Corn Mother” association with the Earth Mother (another common belief in some Native American religions). Analysis has shown that these figurines were made in the Cahokian region (i.e., they were not products acquired through trade from elsewhere); they therefore likely portray Cahokian symbolism, perhaps also representing shamans, elites, or other important members of Cahokian society (Emerson et al. 2003). Cahokian ceramics with similar decorations may have been used in public ceremonies at which all social classes came together to celebrate the agricultural cycle and the fertility of the earth (Emerson 1997b). The Mississippian period reveals a fairly rapid process of the consolidation of power through the control of ritual and religion within a culture. In the emergent period of the Mississippian culture, prior to 900 ce, an agricultural fertility cult seems to have been prominent in rural settings, based at the household level, while elites in more populous towns were concerned with the building of Mississippian political and economic powerbases through diplomatic trade or hostile interaction with regional partners (Emerson 1997a). Commoners and farmers in outlying towns and villages—and even those living nearer the large towns— were far less involved in these concerns as these did not impact the daily and annual cycle of farming and the important elements of water, sun, and fertility. After 900 ce, ritual activities in more rural settings were transported out of the individual household to the large courtyards of “nodal” households belonging to the wealthier and socially elevated residents of outlying communities. Residents living closer to temple towns could access ceremonial activities at these centers. At the height of Mississippian power (1050–1250 ce), the elite class appears to have been in complete control of the religion. Whether in temple towns such as Cahokia or in the countryside, ceremonial centers dominate religious practice. In fact, settings such as Cahokia’s central plaza appear to restrict access to the ceremonial center, implying that elites controlled and carried out ritual “on behalf” of the entire society (Emerson 1997a). Mississippian elites had wrested the “commoner cult” right out of the household and embedded it in the hands— and localities—of the uppermost strata of society. The success of the agricultural cycle, fertility symbolism, and the proper management of the Upper and Under worlds had become far too important to the Mississippian power structure to leave in the hands of the lower stratum of society—the farmers. The success of this cycle was, however, also the lifeblood of those commoners accomplishing

176  Religions in the Americas

the production of food not only for the elites but for their own families. The appropriation of the agricultural cult by the elites allowed them to take control not only of this widespread belief system but also of the people, while essentially excluding them from ceremonies celebrating and ensuring the fertility cycle. By consolidating their power over the commoners, elites could then command the building of large public works such as woodhenges, palisades, and temple mounds. Even the requirement of human sacrifice at the death of an important elite may not have been beyond the power of those in charge of the religion. Mississippian religion became a vital tool in the elite effort to ensure a continued expansion in power over the region and an effective method of controlling Mississippian society. Conclusion North American mound cultures emerged in concert with two important developments: The establishment of cultivation and the appearance of elites. It cannot be a coincidence that these three elements came together to create the fascinating cultures of the North American river valleys. As agriculture became increasingly vital, religious beliefs highlighted the importance of fertility and the growing cycle. Mounds built to observe the skies and bury the ancestors who protected lands and ensured healthy harvests aided residents in their need to celebrate the earth. This is a powerful example of the intersection of religion, reflection of the society who practices it, and the environment. As agricultural production outstripped warfare in importance, so did the agricultural cult become more important, literally removed from the commoners and installed in the temple towns. The building of mounds and other monuments also demonstrates the power of religion to motivate people to accomplish tremendous feats. When power structures emerge in a society, what was once a communal effort quickly becomes co-opted labor to celebrate not only the supernatural world but the elites as well.

Chapter 10

Puebloan Cultures of the American Southwest

At roughly the same time as the Mississippian culture was rising to prominence, the Ancestral Puebloans in the American southwest were building a substantial cultural complex. The origin of those who became the “Puebloans” is still unconfirmed; theories suggest in-place emergence or migration from the south or even the west. Two thousand years ago, they occupied the four corners region of the southwest. Hunter-gatherers, they wove beautiful baskets and began to experiment with plant cultivation. By roughly 800 ce, the first Pueblo communities were scattered across the region and residents were fully engaged in subsistence farming and long-distance trade. By roughly 900 ce, people had constructed “Great Houses” with multiple rooms and large circular structures that functioned as places of worship. At least three distinct cultures were spread across the southwestern region: The Hohokam in southern Arizona and northern Mexico, the Mogollon in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico, and the culture formerly known as the Anasazi (now Ancestral Puebloan) in northern Arizona, New Mexico, and regions of Colorado and Nevada. It is the Ancestral Puebloan culture, with its center in the Chaco Canyon region, that will be the focus in this chapter ­(Figure 10.1). By roughly1300 ce, the Ancestral Puebloan culture of Chaco Canyon came to an end. Drought, changing trade relations, and increasing competition over resources may have been partially to blame. Residents moved to the north and to other locations, but not before they built an incredible cultural complex at the center of the Chaco world. The Ancestral Puebloans: Early Settlement Anasazi is a Navaho word meaning “ancestors of our enemies” (a reference to the uneasy relationship between the Navaho and Puebloan cultures of more recent history). Today, archaeologists use “Ancestral Puebloans” to refer to the ancient cultures of the region, though it is nearly certain that not all residents 1,000 years ago were ancestors to modern Puebloan peoples (Schachner 2015). The term “pueblo” refers to the adobe structures built by indigenous cultures in DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-14

178  Religions in the Americas

Figure 10.1 Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter (map by T. Edwards).

the southwest today (e.g., the Tewa, Zuni, Hopi, and Pima). Many believe that the ancient Puebloans are the ancestors to these cultures, though this remains controversial, since the gap in occupation offers no continuous connection between ancient and modern cultures. However, the similarities in material culture and even belief systems have encouraged many archaeologists to learn from modern Puebloan cultures for insight into interpreting the past. The earliest Puebloan settlements are called the “Basketmaker Cultures,” when maize cultivation was taking hold and villages were first forming; residents constructed strikingly beautiful basketry but no ceramics. The Basketmaker II period began at least by 400 bce, and the Basketmaker III dates to 500–750 ce (Coltrain and Janetski 2019; Stuart 2000). During the Basketmaker II phase, residents continued to forage and hunt but were also engaged in regular cultivation of maize and other plants in garden-type settings (Wilshusen 2018). They built circular or squarish “pit houses” with floors resting as much as two meters below the surface. Walls were constructed of horizontal wooden beams, branches, and reeds, covered with mud, and then plastered; the dome-shaped roof was supported by vertical wooden beams. Most houses had an internal hearth, and some had internal storage pits, while others had even larger external storage areas. It is possible these settlements were occupied for only part of the year, perhaps during the fall and winter; during the warmer season, residents may have been

Puebloan Cultures of the American Southwest 179

more mobile, making use of the natural landscape for their subsistence (Wills and Windes 1989). By Basketmaker III, more substantial houses and rudimentary ceramics made their appearance, settlements increased in size and were more permanently occupied, and a wider variety of plants were cultivated. Pit houses were sometimes twice as large as Basketmaker II houses; they also often featured a type of antechamber, providing entry from ground level as well as additional space for storage. One unusual feature in these pit houses was a small circular hole in the floor, usually near the hearth and northernmost wall; most believe this is an early version of similar holes (known as sipapu) found in later Ancestral Puebloan houses and religious structures that represent a symbolic passage into the spirit world. Some of the larger pit houses may have also functioned as locations for community rituals (Wilshusen 2018). Burials were found in the middens outside the pit houses and in abandoned storage pits both outside and inside houses (Stuart 2000). They were accompanied by goods such as shell and stone ornaments and pottery. The ceramic assemblage primarily consisted of storage and cooking vessels, a few with white and black paint. The Basketmaker III ceramics, however, do not rival the beauty of the later Ancestral Puebloan pottery. Chaco Canyon and Pueblo Bonito The “Pueblo” phases began in the eighth century ce. Pueblo I (750–900 ce) was a period of population increase, larger villages, and ceramic innovation. Villages averaged 20–30 houses rather than the five–ten of the Basketmaker III phase (Stuart 2000). Near the end of the Pueblo I phase, residents began moving into the lowlands, especially into the San Juan basin and the Chaco Canyon region. The reason for this movement may have been competition over land resources, internal strife, or climate change that decreased crop output. It is during the Pueblo II (ca. 900–1150 ce) that the Chaco Canyon settlements reached their zenith and in the Pueblo III (ca. 1150–1300 ce) that the apparent abandonment began. One of the most interesting—and debated— aspects of Chaco Canyon settlement is the different nature of architecture at the settlements. Rather than the square or circular semi-subterranean detached houses described earlier, the Chacoan “Great House” architecture consists of masonry-built structures in the shape of a D, E, L, or geometric forms (circles, squares). All the rooms were connected and structures were several stories high (Figure 10.2). By 1100 ce, the Chaco “Great House” style was adopted by settlements outside the canyon in the San Juan basin and the Mesa Verde region (Kantner 2004). The architecture, and most probably, the ideology of the Chaco Canyon ancient Puebloans had spread far and wide. Chaco Canyon offered good farming opportunities, as it received springtime runoff from the surrounding higher mountains (Vivian and Watson 2015). Residents built channels, dams, and canals to direct water to their maize crops in

180  Religions in the Americas

Figure 10.2 Photo of Great House ruins at Pueblo Del Arroyo (Chaco Canyon) showing the multi-story brick architecture of the connected rooms (photo by S. R. Steadman).

order to make the most of the less than 10 inches of rainfall a year. Maize was their staple crop, but small gardens provided additional plant foods such as beans and squash; hunting remained the norm for meat acquisition. Over the centuries, Chaco residents had to weather seasons of lower rainfall that affected food production, though their extensive system of agricultural management and use of watersheds to serve the multiple communities in the region usually carried them through (Wills and Dorshow 2012). Chaco residents were engaged in trade networks with other Puebloans across the southwest and with regions as far as northern Mexico (Mills 2018). Trade was an essential component in Chaco society, demonstrated by the items that moved around the region, including household goods such as pots and stone tools made from sources outside the valley (Toll 2004). Residents also acquired wood for building their Great Houses from distant sources and enjoyed more exotic items such as turquoise from the Texas region and copper bells from Mexico (Mills 2018). Chaco residents also had a propensity for the brightly colored, tropical macaw bird from Mexico (Watson et al. 2015). People traveled to Chaco on an extensive roadway system that included “lineof-sight” topographical features, along which signal fires might have been used to send messages. Roadways were constructed by deliberately removing the top layer of ground to a depth of up to 50 cm; roads were then bordered by earthen

Puebloan Cultures of the American Southwest 181

berms or sometimes by low stone walls. The labor investment to build these roads was considerable, and a number of communities cooperated in the efforts. They lead out of Chaco in all directions, sometimes directly to other communities or to other canyons or high buttes (Kantner 2004). Shorter roads connected Chacoan Great House communities within the canyon. While these roadways (some over 20 feet wide) may have been constructed to allow for easy trading connections, they could well have served religious or symbolic functions as well. Chacoan pottery was a popular trade item, usually a black-on-white ware with geometric, spiral, zigzag, and original designs (Figure 10.3) and occasional human figures. Particular to Chaco are tall cylindrical jars; other decorated forms include mugs with handles, jars, bowls, and ladles. Chacoans also used a type of grey pottery for cooking and storage, but even some of these more utilitarian vessels were acquired through trade connections. One of the largest and best-known settlements in Chaco Canyon is Pueblo Bonito (Figure 10.4); this masonry-built, D-shaped Great House is nestled against the canyon wall. In the late eleventh century ce, it featured approximately 650 rooms and nearly 40 circular structures known as “kivas,” a Hopi word for similar buildings today. Pueblo Bonito’s Great House was built in stages, beginning around 875 ce, with subsequent portions added over the next 250 years (Lekson 2004). There is only one main entrance into the settlement near the mid-point in the southern wall. The entire complex is divided into two sections, each with a large plaza and kiva. Interspersed throughout the rectangular rooms are circular ones typically also called kivas. These circular structures were long thought to have a religious function, perhaps serving as the family “temple” (in modern pueblo communities the circular kivas are used for rituals). Based on the distribution of hearths and other domestic items, only some areas of Pueblo Bonito—and other great houses in Chaco Canyon—may have been occupied by permanent residents, likely for elite families (Kantner 2004). Much of the space in the Pueblo Bonito great house was devoted to uses other than

Figure 10.3 P hotos and drawings of black-on-white cylindrical jars with geometric designs from Chaco Canyon (photos by the Bureau of Land Management, public domain; drawing by R. Jennison).

182  Religions in the Americas

actual housing, such as for the storage of crops and other items. Exotic imports were found in some rooms, including vessels with stone mosaics on them, carved wooden objects, effigy pots from the Mississippian region, shell trumpets from the southwestern coast, and copper bells from Mexico (Kantner 2004). One room held over 100 “cylinder jars” (seen in Figure 10.4), which were used to consume

Figure 10.4 Top: Photo of D-shaped Pueblo Bonito ( James Q. Jacobs, 2007, CC BY-SA 3.0). Bottom: Sketch of D-shaped Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon (drawing by S. R. Steadman).

Puebloan Cultures of the American Southwest 183

a chocolate drink typically used in ritual ceremonies (Crown and Hurst 2009); also discovered in several Pueblo Bonito rooms were the remains of brightly colored macaws imported from tropical Mexico. Some rooms may have functioned as places where guests could stay during events at Pueblo Bonito, though this is a subject of debate given the lack of “creature comforts” in much of the Great House. Great Houses such as Pueblo Bonito may have functioned as central locations for public events and pilgrimages, both ceremonial and religious. This coincides with the growing conviction that the families who occupied Pueblo Bonito and other Great Houses were elites who were important in Puebloan economy, politics, and possibly, religion (Lekson 2004, 2006). These elite families may have merited enormous houses not only to store their goods but to host the periodic events and arrival of pilgrims to Pueblo Bonito. That residents in outlying villages had a stake in preserving the architecture at Pueblo Bonito is established by the simple fact that they must have contributed to the building of it. The immense amount of labor required to build Pueblo Bonito, even in stages, suggests that people from other settlements contributed their energies and resources, perhaps organized by the Pueblo Bonito residents (Lekson 2004). Evidence from these Chacoan settlements indicates there was a definite element of class differentiation between those who inhabited the great houses and those in the other settlements with single household structures. The relationship between the elites and the rest of the population rested within networks of economic, political, and, it seems, religious ties that knitted together the peoples of the entire canyon into one large societal structure. Chacoan Social Structure

There seems to have been some element of social stratification based on the evidence of architecture, the burials discovered in places such as Pueblo Bonito, and the presence of exotica in the Great Houses. Debate centers not on inequality versus egalitarianism but on whether Chaco Canyon was primarily an economic or political center and on what role religion may have played within such structures (Feinman et al. 2000; Schachner 2015). One theory posits that Chaco elites lived at Great House communities such as Pueblo Bonito and exercised power and societal control based on the acquisition and distribution of trade goods. Chaco Canyon Great Houses might have been the center of a “redistributive” economy in which goods, both utilitarian and exotic, were collected and stored. Goods would have arrived via trade networks and as gifts and donations from pilgrims attending major religious events at the great kivas. Great House residents in charge of a vast redistributive economy would have wielded rather substantial power and influence. Their greatest influence may have rested in their control over the prestige goods such as turquoise, macaw feathers, copper bells, and other long-distance trade items (Lekson 1999). Such elites could have controlled access to exotica, dictating which lesser Great House communities—or

184  Religions in the Americas

even small outlying villages—received particular (political and/or religious) items of power. In addition to the strategic economic position derived through the redistribution of subsistence and prestige goods, Great House elite power may also have been bolstered by the importance of great kivas in the ancient Puebloan belief system. A redistributive economy would ensure the building and maintenance of great houses and kivas, roadways, and other projects. While this explanation would seem to fit the presence of exotic goods, storage spaces, and monumental architecture at places such as Pueblo Bonito, the relative lack of these types of exotic goods at outlying communities makes the “redistributive” explanation less certain. Burials at Pueblo Bonito and in other great houses, in contrast to those in smaller communities, also suggest social, political, and/or economic ranking in ancient Chacoan society (Atkins 2003). Burials in smaller communities were generally placed either in middens or under the houses of floors; they were often accompanied by utilitarian items such as cooking pots. Two exceedingly rich burial clusters were excavated at Pueblo Bonito, reused over a period of at least two centuries (Plog 2011). One group was in the western area of the Great House and one was at the center arc of the “D” structure to the north. The western cluster burials were laid in constructed chambers in interior rooms and contained ceramics and jewelry, baskets, and some items that may have been for ceremonial use. Those to the north were buried in an even more elaborate sealed location; one room contained two adult males and a wooden plank with a circular hole; additional burials were interred in this room over time. Over 30,000 individual objects were associated with these burials, of which 25,000 were made of turquoise (Heitman 2015). Burial rooms also contained other rich grave goods made of shell and wood, various items of jewelry, cylindrical jars and other ceramics; also in these rooms were “prayer sticks,” wooden sticks with carvings or designs and knobs on one end that may have had religious purposes. Similar objects are used during ceremonies in present-day Puebloan cultures (Plog 2015). Many of the burials were partial or disarticulated, probably due to the installation of new interments (Plog and Heitman 2010). Another type of discovery within Pueblo Bonito, both inside rooms and burials, was a vast collection of faunal remains, including those of birds, especially scarlet macaws, and claws, talons, and skulls of other animals, including dogs, rabbits, deer, and coyotes (Bishop and Fladd 2018). The distribution of these faunal remains suggests that those living and buried in the northern arc of Pueblo Bonito were associated with most of these animals—and particularly the birds. Those in the eastern half of the “D” were more closely associated with birds, and those in the west, with carnivores. DNA studies of the burial remains from Pueblo Bonito indicate that not only were those interred there likely from the Chaco region rather than migrants from elsewhere but that members of the same (matrilineal) kinship group were buried over generations (Kennett et al. 2017; Price et al. 2017) (though note the

Puebloan Cultures of the American Southwest 185

controversy regarding such DNA studies: Claw et al. 2017). Further, it is possible that all the elite groups residing at Pueblo Bonito may have been related (Snow and LeBlanc 2015). Such data adds to the suggestion that powerful elites resided in the Great Houses such as Pueblo Bonito. The combined evidence of massive but lightly occupied Great Houses, in which elites appear to have resided and been buried, leads some to suggest that these inhabitants were the caretakers of a religious center; that they may have been akin to priests whose duties included overseeing important rituals and ceremonies (Renfrew 2004). In this scenario, socioeconomic and political differentiation may have been secondary to the religious position of Chacoan elites. Locations such as Pueblo Bonito seems to have been visited by a steady stream of pilgrims (Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Van Dyke 2019), who were then possibly directed in worship by the resident Bonitoans. In this interpretation, the monumental architecture of the Great Houses was testament to “high devotional expression” more than to political or economic power (Renfrew 2004). Chaco’s Great Houses may have been the cathedrals of the southwest. The Chacoan Belief System

The forgoing description of the Chacoan world demonstrates the complexity of what must have been a deeply held belief system. Capturing the entirety of Chacoan religion and ritual is nearly impossible, but abundant clues from both archaeological and ethnographic sources offer some insight. Architecture and Roads

Modern Puebloan religions are well known for religious buildings known as kivas. Typically, Chaco Canyon kivas were stone-lined with log-built roofs. Entrance was through the roof by wooden ladder, which also provided ventilation. Around the interior was a low stone bench upon which items could be placed or people could sit; hearths were located in the center (Figure 10.5). Some kivas had grooves or vaults in the floor, perhaps for storage or for religious purposes. Most had a small hole in the floor, believed to represent the sipapu, or “place of emergence” in Hopi. The Hopi believe that people first ascended from the spirit world to this layer of the world through a hollow reed. The hole in the floor of the Chaco kivas could be a symbolic representation of the sipapu through which the original people came. At Pueblo Bonito, the smaller kivas within the great house were probably associated with particular kin or social groups. Household ceremonies may have been carried out in these structures on a daily or frequent basis (Figure 10.6). The “Great Kivas,” significantly larger than other kivas (as much as 45 feet in diameter), were probably used for more public gatherings. Great kivas were similar in structure to the smaller kivas, but entry was usually through an attached

186  Religions in the Americas

Figure 10.5 P hoto of large kiva at the site of Chetro Ketl in Chaco Canyon (photo by S. R. Steadman).

antechamber leading from ground level downward into the central kiva area, giving the great kiva a keyhole shape when viewed from above. During special ceremonies, great kivas may have been used by everyone inhabiting and possibly visiting Pueblo Bonito. Ancestral Puebloans may have also been concerned with astronomical observations, especially those relevant to the agricultural cycle and rainfall patterns. This makes perfect sense, as the uncertainties of the dry climate made farming a sometimes difficult undertaking. By the early Basketmaker III period, the placement of several villages and astronomically aligned landscape features such as mountains and rock formations suggests that Ancestral Puebloans found the Chaco Canyon region to be a type of sacred area associated with movements of the sun and moon (Weiner and Kelley 2021). The residents certainly tracked the movements of the sun and moon through the use of the “Sun Dagger” at Fajida Butte, roughly 6 kilometers southeast of Pueblo Bonito. Three slabs of stone rest against a rock face that has both a large and a small spiral design pecked onto it. At the solstices and equinoxes, sunlight in the shape of a ragged dagger shines between the slabs onto the pecked spirals (Sofaer 1997, 2007). During the summer solstice, the dagger bisects the larger spiral exactly, and during the winter solstice, two daggers frame it. During the two equinoxes, the dagger is lightly off center of the larger spiral and bisects the smaller one (Figure 10.7). This is only one of several points on the Chacoan landscape in which the movement of the sun, signaling seasonal changes, can be tracked. Archaeologists have also

Puebloan Cultures of the American Southwest 187

Figure 10.6 Artistic rendering of ritual in Pueblo Bonito kiva (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

speculated that important solar and lunar events might have been observed using built structures. For instance, a strategic niche in the roof of a kiva would allow sunlight to shine on a kiva wall. If the wall’s interior had important drawings or designs on it, the sun’s movement across the sky could be tracked. This appears

188  Religions in the Americas

Figure 10.7 L eft: Photo and drawing of Fajada Butte in Chaco Canyon. Right: Artistic rendering of Fajada Butte and the sun daggers at Fajada Butte (photo by S. R. Steadman, drawings by R. Jennison).

to be the point of a niche in a great kiva at a site called Casa Rinconada “where a beam of sunlight thrown on an interior wall could have marked certain days” (Malville 2004: 90). That the plaster has decayed off the walls of most kivas— and the roofs have caved in—impedes archaeological documentation of any astronomical devices within kivas that may have been used to mark ritually important points on the calendar. The Chacoans clearly believed that keeping track of the sky was a vital component to the success of their agricultural cycle. Artifacts, Animals, and Burials

The thousands of incredible artifacts found at Chaco Canyon sites, primarily at Pueblo Bonito, highlight the importance of the location and the residents. Many of these artifacts were imported from elsewhere, arriving through trade, pilgrimage, or both. Among these were portrayals of animals that have present-day association with “moisture-making,” including representations of frogs (as amulets) made of turquoise as well as frog effigy pots, ducks made of jet, green stone, wood, and shell, numerous bird carvings and paintings, and snake images that are related to earth and sky symbolism and particularly reference fertility (Plog 2011). Also in these caches were clay pipes known as “cloud blowers,” also used in Hopi rituals today to create puffs of smoke resembling clouds. The presence of such items in

Puebloan Cultures of the American Southwest 189

elite burials, many of the items having come from great distances, suggests they carried deep symbolic meaning for Ancestral Puebloans, perhaps associated with their reliance on an all-important successful agricultural cycle in their arid homeland. The long-lived kinship relationship of those buried in the artifact-rich burials at Pueblo Bonito demonstrate that powerful kin-based social groups were ensconced here—and possibly at other—Great House locations. These individuals may have represented elements perceived as closely connected with the Chacoan cosmology, including aspects of directionality and astronomy, fertility, and rainmaking. The combination of artifacts representing animals and the associated faunal remains suggests that Pueblo Bonito residents may have been responsible for important rituals serving to balance the natural world. That these abilities were passed down through generations would seem to be attested by the kin-related burials spanning generations. The interment of the dead in the same place, over time, also suggests the presence of ancestor veneration, not just by living relatives but perhaps by those who lived in the larger Chacoan world (Plog and Heitman 2010). Conclusion The Ancestral Puebloans of a millennium ago depended on a productive agricultural cycle and developed an impressive long-distance trade network. They produced beautiful baskets and ceramics, built a remarkable road system, and carried out massive architectural undertakings. The Chaco Canyon region—and particularly Pueblo Bonito—appear to have been at the center of a large and complex cosmology incorporating a multi-layered universe featuring directionality, fertility, the sky, and the earth, including its plants and animals. Great House elites may have been responsible for keeping the balance of this complex world. In addition to frequent ceremonies in the smaller kivas near their living quarters, public ceremonies conducted at important points on the calendar—or during the visit of pilgrims to the Chaco center—may have been conducted in the great kivas in the center of the settlement (Heitman 2015), where the sipapu allowed for direct access to the multi-layered world. The impressive road system across the Chaco world facilitated the movement of people and goods but also symbolically oriented that world and the people in it to the upper and lower vertical layers within their cosmology as well as the four directional coordinates of the horizontal layer they inhabited. Traveling these roads, members of the larger Chaco world may have come as pilgrims to Great Houses such as Pueblo Bonito bearing gifts, perhaps to honor symbolic ancestors living at the Chaco center or simply to help ensure Chaco elites continued carrying out their important task of providing critical balance and harmony.

Chapter 11

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire

The Aztecs are perhaps the best-known culture of ancient Mesoamerica, in part because of the dramatic stories associated with their demise at the hands of the Spaniards—and, in part, due to their spectacular sacrifices of human victims. The Aztecs burst on the Mesoamerican scene in the twelfth century ce, reaching the pinnacle of their civilization in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. However, they were not the first to build grand structures and carry out human sacrifice in Mesoamerica. A  long succession of fascinating cultures preceded their arrival. The Olmecs Nearly 2,000 years before the Aztecs, a culture known as the Olmecs occupied a significant swath of Mesoamerica. The Olmecs (ca. 1200–400 bce) are wellknown for the sculpted stone human heads scattered across their landscape ­(Figure  11.1). Two main Olmec cities were San Lorenzo and La Venta ­(Figure  11.2), each with populations in the thousands; their buildings were adorned with sculpture and large areas were available for public ritual. Each city also boasted monumental works, built by residents at the direction of their rulers. At San Lorenzo, sculptures adorned nearly every edifice, and a vast aqueduct carried water throughout the settlement, particularly to important ritual locales within the city. At La Venta, sculptures also abounded, as did several pyramids. The grandeur of these cities demonstrated the ability of Olmec leaders to command considerable labor from their residents. Statuary served to legitimize the power of rulers and promote a social memory of power, religion, and leadership (Pool and Loughlin 2017). Knowledge about Olmec religion derives primarily from iconographic representations and archaeological discovery of ritual areas. The religions of post-Olmec cultures demonstrate similarities to Olmec art in their cosmologies and artistic representations of major deities, leading some to suggest the Olmecs founded many elements of Mesoamerican beliefs (Joralemon 1976). Archaeology has provided the images of Olmec deities, but their functions in Olmec cosmology have been harder to define. Several types of deities appear to DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-15

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 191

Figure 11.1 S tone carving of Olmec head wearing a helmet (possibly such as that worn in the Mesoamerican “ballgame”), from the site of San Lorenzo (Mesoamerican, 2013, CC BY-SA 4.0).

be represented in the Olmec cosmology: One is the Olmec Dragon (also called the were-jaguar), and others are sometimes known as the Bird Monster and the Fish or Shark Monster (Arnold 2005; Diehl 2004). Each of these may have presided over their own region of the cosmos: The Dragon over the earth and its functions, the Bird over the sky, and the Fish overseeing the waters. The Olmec concept of a three-layered world (an upper layer in the sky, the earth and its humans, and a layer below the earth), oriented according to the four cardinal directions and connected by a vertical axis, is something found in Aztec and Maya belief systems as well. The Olmec relied on maize cultivation in concert with other subsistence strategies to support a substantial population (Killion 2013). Ensuring a fertile earth and successful harvests were therefore a prominent aspect of their belief system. The Olmec Dragon was responsible for agricultural fertility, in combination with other deities, including an Olmec Maize deity and a Water/Rain deity, both of which may have been considered female (Tate 2012). A significant number

192  Religions in the Americas

Figure 11.2 M ap of sites and regions discussed in the chapter (map by S. R. Steadman and T. Edwards).

of Olmec art appears to portray babies, sometimes symbolically in the womb; this may have a strong association with the importance of maize agriculture and the sprouting of seeds in a fertile earth (Tate 2012). Olmec shamans and priests guided the people in important ceremonies. Olmec art depicts therianthropes, which may represent the process of a shaman entering a trance, induced by the ingestion of hallucinogenic drugs, and the shamanic travel to another layer (upper or lower). Priests may have been the more formal figures depicted in Olmec art, perhaps responsible for public rituals. The Olmecs also believed their leaders played an important role in their religion. Rulers carried out rituals, and by the height of the Olmec period, they also served as “chief priests” in important public rituals (Diehl 2004). Whether rulers claimed a divine nature is not clear from Olmec art, but their role in Olmec religious belief was undoubtedly of significant importance. By ca. 1000 bce, the Olmecs were building temples and large plazas for their ritual activities. Other ceremonies apparently took place at natural settings such as caves and freshwater sites. One other sacred area seems to have been the ball court, where the earliest version of the Mesoamerican ballgame was played. Players represented various deities and played a game in which the

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 193

goal may have been to ensure future prosperity for the winner; there is some evidence to suggest that the loser lost not just the game but his life as well (Diehl 2004). The Olmec head in Figure 11.1 may show a player in his helmet. The ball court and associated game continued to be an important aspect of Mesoamerican religion in succeeding centuries and cultures. By 400 bce, most of the major Olmec settlements were abandoned, and the ubiquitous Olmec art was no longer produced. The cause of the collapse is a subject of continued investigation, but a combination of environmental difficulties and internal systemic disorder was probably at the root of the disintegration of the first Mesoamerican civilization. Teotihuacan Hundreds of kilometers to the west of the Olmec centers and several centuries later, another city rose to prominence by 100 bce (Nichols 2016). Teotihuacan lies in the Basin of Mexico, resting at an elevation of over 2,000 meters. The basin is surrounded by volcanoes, now dormant, that made obsidian a plentiful item. Near Teotihuacan is Lake Texcoco, originally a network of connected lakes creating a border region full of marshes. These are now missing from the modern Mexican landscape, having been drained by the Spaniards after they colonized the region. By the beginning of the first millennium ce, Teotihuacan was a large city with a population of perhaps 100,000 or more, spread across a settlement area of nearly 20 km2 (Smith et al. 2019). The city was a center of commerce with neighborhoods occupied by merchants and craft-makers from regional and distant areas (Nichols 2016). Teotihuacan was the center of the Mesoamerican world in the early centuries of the millennium, but by 650 ce, this metropolis was all but abandoned (Manzanilla 2015). At its height, Teotihuacan was a city to be marveled over. At its center were monumental buildings and pyramids, workshops and markets, and elite residences nearby (Figure 11.3). The city boasted many pyramids, but the most remarkable of them are at the ceremonial center, lying along the “Avenue of the Dead,” which also featured other structures such as palaces and administrative areas (Nichols 2016). At the northern end of the Avenue of the Dead stands the Pyramid of the Moon, 43 meters high, which was the first of the pyramids to be built (Figure 11.4). The largest structure is the Pyramid of the Sun, 2.4 kilometers south of the Moon Plaza (Figure 11.3), standing 70 meters high. Between these is the “Temple of Quetzalcoatl” or the “Feathered Serpent Temple,” which was the last to be built (Manzanilla 2015) (Figure  11.5), dedicated to the deity Quetzalcoatl, often called the “Feathered Serpent,” who was essential to later Aztec creation mythology. The Pyramid of the Moon was erected over a natural cave and builders included tunnels to access this feature (Argote et al. 2020). Caves were artificially created under the other two temples which also included access

Figure 11.3 Top: View of the “Avenue of the Dead” in the ceremonial center of Teotihuacan. The Pyramid of the Sun is on the left ( Jackhynes, 2006, public domain). Bottom: Sketch plan of the Teotihuacan center (drawing by S. R. Steadman).

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 195

Figure 11.4 View of the Pyramid of the Moon at Teotihuacan (Daniel Case, 2016, CC BY-SA 3.0).

tunnels; these underground spaces suggest that access to what was considered an “underworld” may have been a critical component of the Teotihuacan residents’ belief system. In later Aztec times, Miclantecuhtli was an important god who presided over the underworld. Burial complexes are also associated with these temples, perhaps containing high-ranking individuals who served as secular or religious leaders. The Avenue of the Dead was built with astronomical alignments in mind and may have hosted important events associated with a specialized calendar and sacred times of the year (Cowgill 2008). All of these buildings were once brightly painted, and the Temple of Quetzalcoatl especially was decorated with stone reliefs of what must have been Teotihuacan deities, some of which were mentioned earlier. The Pyramid of the Sun appears to have been associated with the Teotihuacan Storm God/Rain God known as Tlaloc in later Aztec culture and may have been a pilgrimage destination (Nichols 2016). By the middle of the eighth century, residents were abandoning Teotihuacan. Climatic change, depletion of the environment, invasion, and infrastructural collapse have all been offered as explanations to describe the rather rapid disintegration of this major center. Whatever the cause of the collapse, Teotihuacan’s importance remained in the minds of those who came later: The Aztecs considered it a sacred “city of ghosts.” The Aztecs The Aztec Empire rose to power in the early fourteenth century and was destroyed by the Spaniards in 1521. Though short-lived, their empire was powerful; at the heart of it were their superb warriors and their deep belief in the power of their gods.

196  Religions in the Americas

Figure 11.5 Top: View of the Temple of Quetzalcoatl (the Feathered Serpent) (Diego Delso, 2013, CC BY-SA 3.0). Bottom: Close-up of stone carving of Quetzalcoatl that decorates the temple ( JK23JK23, 2013, CC BY-SA 3.0). Aztec Origins

Aztec origins are not fully understood by archaeologists. People think of the “Aztecs” as those who occupied the city of Tenochtitlan in Lake Texcoco. However, this area was occupied by numerous ethnic groups with differing traditions and who followed leaders other than Aztec kings. These groups shared language

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 197

and belief systems but were not united politically (Smith 2011). The name “Aztec” is derived from “Aztlan,” a mythical place in the north from which all peoples of Mesoamerica came according to Aztec cosmology (de Rojas 2012); “Aztec” is apparently a corruption of this name and was not how the residents of Tenochtitlan referred to themselves. The Spaniards called the peoples in this region the “Mexica,” and another group who may have helped found the Aztec culture were the “Tenochca” (Carrasco 2011). In the late twelfth century, the people now known as the Aztecs began arriving in groups, possibly from locations to the north, to settle in the Valley of Mexico. Aztec myth recounts that the god Huitzilopochtli urged the Aztecs to leave their homeland, known as Aztlan, for the Valley of Mexico. The Aztecs wandered for some time, finally settling in a marshy area called Chapultepec, or “Grasshopper Hill,” because the better locations were already occupied by previous migrants and other indigenous groups (Carrasco 2011). After several violent encounters with neighbors, the Aztecs were driven out to wander yet again; mythology tells us that Huitzilopochtli revealed to his people that their new homeland would be marked by an eagle standing atop a cactus (Figure 11.6). When they spied this sight in 1325, they founded their new homeland and named their city Tenochtitlan, derived from their setting (tenoch-tetl, meaning “cactusrock”) (Smith 2011); this scene now decorates the flag of Mexico. Their new homeland was in the swampy area ringing Lake Texcoco, surrounded by many other city-states who did not cast out this small group who chose to live in such an inhospitable place. The Rise of the Aztec Empire

Though their new homeland offered neither solid ground nor good building materials—and agricultural land was inadequate at best—the Aztecs persevered and built a grand city. Residents hunted and fished and traveled by canoe to develop trade that helped supply their needs. Through trade and hard work, the Aztecs acquired building materials for their city and constructed chinampas, or agricultural lands built on the freshwater edges of the lake (Carrasco 2011). With a stable place to live, the Aztec population began to grow; Tenochtitlan residents built more extensive trade networks with surrounding city-states. By the later fourteenth century, Aztec elites were intermarrying with those from surrounding regions. Aztec society was divided into two groups: nobles (the pipiltin) and the commoners (the macehualtin); at the head of Aztec societies were warrior-rulers, led by the tlatoani, or “speaker,” who was not only a great warrior but had to be well-versed in Aztec religion and ritual as well (Carrasco 2011). The nobility, or pipiltin, held many privileges, including the right to wear certain clothing, ownership of land, and the possibility of advancement to leadership roles. Warriors who excelled on the battlefield could be elevated to pipiltin status, but the majority of warriors remained in the commoner (macehualtin)

198  Religions in the Americas

Figure 11.6 Tovar Codex (a sixteenth-century book by a Spanish Jesuit priest) illustration of the Aztec foundation myth of Tenochtitlan (public domain).

classes. Besides peopling the war machine, macehualtin included craftsmen, farmers, artisans, and slaves. They had to pay a tax to the tlatoani that was usually given in the form of cotton textiles and labor; commoners built temples, palaces, courts, and other building projects in the service of the Aztec leader. The pipiltin nobility also paid tax, which could be satisfied through service as leaders on the battlefield (Smith 2011). Slaves (tlacotin) were typically people who had sold themselves into slavery due to debt (gambling or agricultural difficulties). Becoming a slave could also be a type of punishment (Smith 2011); nobles were typically the possessors of slaves.

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 199

All Aztec boys who did not enter the priesthood received training to become warriors (Figure 11.7). As youngsters, macehualtin boys entered the “House of Youth” (telpochcalli), a “school” providing very basic conditions, where they learned the labors and arts of adult Aztec men, including the methods of warfare and the rules that bound behavior on the battlefield (de Rojas 2012). A similar school (calmecac) was attended by nobles and a few commoner boys, which provided similar training in a somewhat more comfortable setting (Smith 2011). By the teenage years, boys had learned much of what they needed to know to perform Mesoamerican warcraft. Most then turned to the work of their fathers, whether it was farming, trading, craft-making, or performance of some other service in Aztec society. Macehualtin were essentially the “foot soldiers” of the Aztec army in that they were not full-time warriors but only came when called for battle. In a young man’s first battle, he assisted a more seasoned warrior, but by his second time on the battlefield, he was expected to fight. A macehualtin who performed well in warcraft might advance in Aztec society. One of the most important measures of success was not how many enemy combatants were killed but rather how many were taken captive (Smith 2011). Captives taken on the battlefield made up a large proportion of the human sacrifices carried out in Aztec rituals. Taking captives was an art, as they needed to be virtually unharmed in order to be unblemished offerings to the Aztec deities. Herein is an intimate interconnection between warfare and Aztec religion, a concept explored more fully later. By the early fifteenth century, the Aztecs had endured many battles to gain substantial territories and became the recipients of tribute from these regions (de Rojas 2012). Their powerbase in the Valley of Mexico quickly grew, rivaling the most powerful city-states of the time. Over the next decades, more wars brought

Figure 11.7 F lorentine Codex (created in the sixteenth century by a Spanish priest) displaying various ranks of Aztec warriors (public domain).

200  Religions in the Americas

more tribute-paying regions under Aztec control and more chinampas available for cultivation. Wealth and trade allowed the Aztecs to continue building their capital city, establishing vast palaces, shrines, and imposing temples. The tribute and lands from conquered regions enriched the Aztec elites and allowed for the development of a system of land tenure. Warriors and elites became the stewards of various tracts of land on which they built impressive homes befitting landed noblemen in a powerful empire (Smith 2011). In 1440, Moctezoma I came to power and expanded the empire substantially. Under this ruler, the Aztecs perfected their military tactics, used not only to conquer but to enforce rules of tribute-paying and resist rebellion. Much of their success had been built on warfare and the warrior class; the deities associated with warfare, such as the sun god, were very important in the Aztec cosmology. During the fifteenth century, Aztec rulers mounted building campaigns that erected monuments not just in the capital city but throughout their conquered lands. These projects, built by workers from the commoner classes, included ceremonial centers, temples, forts, and religious monuments. This building campaign reenforced the Aztec belief systems and practices in outlying territories. The Aztecs developed a type of writing system that included both hieroglyphs and pictorial representation. The latter recorded events, people, and the gods through images that carried symbolic meaning. An example of this is the picture of a temple afire that could represent the Aztec victory over a neighboring city (Smith 2011). An image really functioned as an ideogram, since the reader would need to know the context of the picture, including which region was conquered, by which warriors, and so on. Thus, this type of Aztec writing was more of a mnemonic device than a document one would “read.” The Aztecs also employed hieroglyphs that had to be learned by scribes in order to be used correctly. These glyphs represented calendrical dates, names of individuals, ritual events, and other categories of information. Temple personnel and the elite were taught to read and write these hieroglyphs; commoners could “read” the pictorial writing but not the hieroglyphs. The final Aztec independent ruler, Moctezoma II (grandson of Moctezoma I), who came to power in 1502 (Figure 11.8), ruled over an enormous empire second in size only to the Incas in South America. Aztec Religion

Aztec religion is a complex mix of numerous myths, deities, and concepts, some of which seem to contradict each other or give entirely separate explanations for the same person or event. This confusion arises from a melding of the original Aztec (Aztlan) beliefs and existent belief structures the Aztecs found upon their arrival in the Valley of Mexico. Many of the Aztec myths and deities are drawn from those represented on the temples at Teotihuacan, a city the Aztecs considered very sacred. Another source of confusion is the imperfect understanding Spaniard chroniclers had of the Aztec religion, recording information not

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 201

Figure 11.8 Tovar Codex illustrating the last Aztec king known as Moctezoma II (public domain).

from priests but from whomever would talk to them (Carrasco 2000). It is not surprising, therefore, to find gods with two versions of their births—and myths describing the same events in two different ways. In spite of these discrepancies, archaeologists have provided much insight into Aztec belief and ritual, and we learn much about how religion was effectively used to rule a people. The Aztecs conceived of a multi-layered world, including an upper or celestial level, the middle world inhabited by the Aztecs, and an underworld. The Aztecs believed they were living in the fifth recreated world, after destructions of four previous worlds; they called their world the “Fifth Sun” age. Though there are variants, the main thread of the creation story rests in the actions of a god who possessed both male and female characteristics and who, therefore, could give birth. Four children produced from this divine unity became principal gods in the Aztec pantheon: Quetzalcoatl (The Feathered Serpent, god of creation and of priests; Figure 11.9), Xipe Totec (god of agriculture), Tezcatlipoca (“Smoking Mirror,” god of all power and of the nobility), and Huitzilopochtli (god of war, and patron god of the Aztecs). These four proceeded to create the earth, animals, plants, the four elements, and eventually, people, who occupied the “First Sun” age (Smith 2011). The first four suns were worlds inhabited by people who had

202  Religions in the Americas

Figure 11.9 Borbonicus Codex (a sixteenth-century image by a Spanish priests) illustrating the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl (public domain).

differing subsistence strategies; in one sun, people ate seeds; in another, they subsisted on acorns. In each age, a different Aztec god presided over the people and the Aztec pantheon; each of these previous ages was destroyed by a cataclysm. The Fifth Sun was created by the gods Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, who created earth and sky from a sea monster (Smith 2011). Quetzalcoatl collected the bones of the Fourth Sun ancestors from the underworld; the gods then shed their own blood on these bones from which came the Aztecs of the Fifth Sun, a people who ate maize. The next step was to create a sun. The gods met in the

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 203

sacred city of Teotihuacan to decide who would light the newly created fifth world. Two gods, Tecuciztecatl and Nanahuatzin, came forward as contenders and so two hills were built upon which they would prepare themselves for the difficult feat of becoming the sun. In the Aztec cosmology, these two hills became the Temple of the Sun and Temple of the Moon at Teotihuacan. When they were prepared, the two gods approached the sacred fire; first, Tecuciztecatl attempted to enter the fire but was driven back by its ferocity. The other god, Nanahuatzin, jumped directly into it; Tecuciztecatl, inspired by the fortitude of Nanahuatzin, followed him in. These two gods then rose in the sky; Nanahuatzin became the Sun God Tonatiuh, and Tecuciztecatl, the moon. However, in order to cause the sun and moon to follow their patterns of rising and setting, the remaining gods had to give a blood sacrifice, offering their hearts to Tonatiuh (Smith 2011). Embedded in these two myths is the explanation of the need for bloodletting, an important aspect of Aztec ritual. According to Aztec belief, the Fifth Sun would also someday end in cataclysmic destruction, the date of which was unknown. The destruction of the Fifth Sun could only happen at the end of a 52-year-long cycle based on two separate Aztec calendars (see the following). Therefore, when one cycle ended and the world was still intact the following day, a grand ritual to celebrate another 52 years of existence took place. One can only imagine the anxiety Aztecs must have felt in the days and weeks before the end of each cycle—and the subsequent intense relief at seeing the sun rise on the first day of the new cycle. The Aztecs conceived of time as ordered by a calendar (Figure 11.10). The calendar operated based on two counts: One was a 260-day ritual cycle, and the other was a 365-day solar count, the latter important for the agricultural cycle. The 52-year cycle is based on both calendars; only once every 52 years did the two calendars conclude on the same day, offering the possibility that the world would end. The 260-day calendar had a complex system of naming and numbering (each day received a name such as rabbit, flint, or jaguar, and a number between 1 and 13); the name of each day was unique, allowing for precise recordkeeping concerning important rituals and other events. This calendar was divided into 13-day segments, constituting the Aztec “week,” and each of these weeks was the responsibility of a different Aztec deity. Aztecs could go to professional diviners to determine the best day in this calendar to undertake an important event or for predictions about a newborn child (Smith 2011). The 365-day calendar was divided into 20-day segments, totaling 18 months. This calendar was important for the agricultural cycle, scheduling market days, and was also responsible for keeping track of public ceremonies that occurred monthly. In a similar fashion to the shorter calendar, the 365-day count also designated names for each day. Thus, when the two calendars were combined, each day had two names, making it utterly unique within the 52-year count. In this way, the Aztecs could keep track of events in the past and predict the precise timing of events that were foreseen to come.

204  Religions in the Americas

Figure 11.10 S tone carving of the Aztec calendar in the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City (Gary Todd, 2012, CC BY-SA 1.0).

In addition to a very sophisticated reckoning of time, the Aztecs also viewed the landscape around them as imbued with sacred meaning. As was the case with earlier Mesoamerican cultures, caves and unusual formations on the landscape were considered sacred and often functioned as the setting for important events. Of particular importance to the Aztecs were mountains, especially Mt. Tlaloc to the north. This mountain was said to be the origin of rain, mist, snow, and the clouds that produce these; it may have also influenced the orientation of Templo Mayor at the center of the Aztec ceremonial precinct (Aveni et al. 1988). Temples were not just religious buildings in the Aztec landscape but also represented important aspects of mythology. The Aztecs conceived of their world as surrounded by water; at its edge, it rose vertically to connect the world with the upper layer where the gods resided. Upon the inhabited earth, the connectors between the human world and the one above were mountains; the Aztecs believed mountains could provide rain, cause disease, and harbored the deities (Broda 1991). Besides in cities, temples were built in the countryside and on mountaintops (one was built on Mt. Tlaloc at an elevation of over 13,000 feet)

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 205

that functioned as destinations for sacred pilgrimages at important points on the calendar (Townsend 1991). Therefore, temples such as Templo Mayor served not only as a religious landmark but as a representation of a sacred mountain connecting the Aztec world to that of the gods. It is the Aztec rituals of bloodletting and sacrifice that captured the greatest attention of the Spaniards and intrigues students and scholars today. Public rituals took place on the tall and beautifully built temples such as Templo Mayor. These rituals were presided over by priests, each of whom was dedicated to an Aztec god and served the deity’s temple. There was a ranked hierarchy among priests, beginning with the two highest and most sacred Quetzalcoatl Priests, followed by the “Fire Priests,” near the top of the hierarchy, down to the newly initiated “Little Priests” at the bottom (Smith 2011). Only the Fire Priests could oversee the most important and sacred ceremonies involving human sacrifice. At the center of Aztec ritual beliefs are several concepts: Sacred blood, sacred body, warfare, and death. The Aztecs believed each human possessed tonalli, a divine force derived from the heat of the sun and from fire and which resided in the head and body of each Aztec. The human body also contained teyolia, a different divine force, closer to the notion of a “soul,” which resided in the heart (Carrasco 2011; Ingham 1984). Humans had differing levels of teyolia in their hearts; priests, great warriors, artists, and those who represented the gods at festivals and ceremonies held the most. The belief in the existence of these two substances in the body and heart illustrate why bloodletting—and the removal of the beating heart from a sacrificial victim—were the most sacred activities accomplished for the gods. The blood sacrifice was seen as a reenactment of the bloodletting done by Tezcatlipoca and Huitzilopochtli to create humans (Tiesler and Olivier 2020). Priests were responsible for offering their blood to the gods on a daily basis by piercing their ears, tongue, arm, or genitals with a sharp thorn (Figure 11.11). In some ceremonies, a string pulled through the wound to bloody it was then offered to the gods. Priestly devotion could be seen on their very bodies, which bore many self-inflicted wounds; their long hair was matted with blood (Smith 2011). The offering of blood, especially from the head, gave not only blood but tonalli to the gods. However, it was not only the priests but all Aztecs who bled themselves at various times, giving, for instance, a blood offering to request a successful harvest. The Aztecs are perhaps best known for their human sacrifices. Such events were very public and, with only a few exceptions, took place at the temples. Attendees watched as sacrificial victims were laid out on a stone altar where Fire Priests used a ceremonial knife to open the victim’s chest (Figure 11.12). The heart was removed while still beating and offered to the sun god Tonatiuh. The victim was then rolled down the steps so that the blood from his chest ran down the stairs and coated the walls of the temple, thereby feeding the sacred house of the god. At the end of the ceremony, when all the victims rested at the bottom

206  Religions in the Americas

Figure 11.11 Image from the Magliabechiano Codex (a sixteenth century book by a Spanish chronicler) of two priests (in the center) piercing tongue (left) and ear (right) (public domain).

of the stairs, the priests removed their heads and placed them on a “Skull Rack” near the temple (Smith 2011). The selection of sacrificial victims depended on the needs of the god to whom the sacrifice was to be dedicated. The majority of those sacrificed were prisoners of war, taken on the battlefield for this very purpose. The Aztecs believed that the sacrificial victims were a personification of the god for whom they died, and therefore, needed to have the appropriate characteristics acceptable to that deity. The sun god Tonatiuh required warriors captured in battle; enemy soldiers were kept as “guests” of the Aztecs, housed, fed, and treated very well until the time of their sacrifice. Other members of Mesoamerican society were also acceptable sacrifices; Coatlicue and Yeuatlicue, the wives of important Aztec gods, accepted only sacrifices of women (Broda 1991). The important Aztec god Tlaloc, responsible for rain and the earth in general, required regular child sacrifices, usually killed by decapitation. Sometimes children who had been sold into slavery or additional (secondary) children of nobles would be chosen as suitable offerings for Tlaloc. These sacrifices often took place out in the landscape, on hills, in valleys, or in other places sacred to Tlaloc; such places were considered the “mouths” of the earth, allowing the blood and flesh of the children to feed the god and give him the power to keep the

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 207

Figure 11.12  L eft: Image from the Magliabechiano Codex showing a human sacrifice at the top of a temple (public domain). Right: Ceremonial Aztec knife similar to those used in human sacrifice (Templo Mayor Museum, Gary Todd, 2012, CC BY-SA 1.0).

rains and earth functioning properly. Tears of the children—and the weeping of the attendees—were seen as symbolic of the rains Tlaloc would bring (Arnold 1999). Some ceremonies needed an enormous amount of preparation. The important god Tezcatlipoca, translated as “Smoking Mirror,” god of power and of the nobility, required a “perfect” young man, chosen from the warriors captured on the battlefield. This man had to be handsome and free of imperfections in body or face. It took a full year for him to be transformed into the earthly version of Tezcatlipoca, during which time he was treated as if he was actually the god. He was adorned with fine clothing, given ornaments and decorations to wear, and attended numerous public ceremonies where, as representative of Tezcatlipoca, he interacted with the Aztec people (Carrasco 1999). During the last month before the sacrifice, he was returned to previous warrior status in appearance, thereby representing this aspect of the god as well. He was then given four women to act as the god’s wives in the last weeks before the ceremony. On the appointed day in the month of May, he proceeded to the temple at Chalco, a city south of Tenochtitlan, where he mounted the steps and was then sacrificed by heart extraction (Carrasco 1999). After his heart was offered to the god, his head was placed on the skull rack; his blood renewed the sun, earth, gods and Aztecs alike.

208  Religions in the Americas

Not all sacrifices involved the removal of the heart at the top of a temple. The most notable yearly sacrifice to Xipe Totec (The “Flayed Lord”), responsible for agricultural success, involved a mock battle in front of the temple dedicated to him. Xipe Totec’s priests wore the flayed skins of warriors whose hearts had been removed so that the priests resembled Xipe Totec, who was always depicted wearing a flayed skin, symbolizing earth’s new “skin,” exhibited every spring by new growth. At the beginning of the planting cycle in the spring, the sacred “Feast of the Flayed Man” was held. In this ritual, only the finest enemy warriors were selected for sacrifice, and their captors were honored and given opportunities for advancement in rank. On the appointed day, the sacrificial warriors were stripped of the finery they had worn preceding their sacrifice and dressed in a loincloth. Tied by the waist to the “gladiatorial” stone set on a pedestal at the base of Xipe Totec’s temple, warriors were given a battle club. However, this club did not have obsidian blades in it but feathers. One at a time, four Aztec warriors approached the captive, each with a real obsidian-studded club, to engage in battle (Figure  11.13). The captive was expected to fight as if in real battle, and because he was on an elevated stone, he was sometimes able to “defeat” (probably strike) the Aztec warriors from above (Smith 2011). Eventually, the captive was felled and a priest of Xipe Totec opened his chest, removed his heart, and offered it to the sun; the head was removed and placed on the skull rack next to the temple. The captor who originally offered the warrior was then allowed to flay the skin and wear it—and dismember the body—part of which would be featured at a feast in the captor’s house (Smith 2011). This feast was attended by the captor’s family, acting as mourners for the sacrificed warrior, who they had housed and cared for during his captivity. They mourned him as a “family member” as they consumed his body. How many people were sacrificed on an average ritual day in Aztec ceremonies? Estimated numbers vary widely and may have differed depending on the number of warriors captured. In addition to the special enemy warriors who died “in battle” at the Xipe Totec gladiatorial stone, more traditional sacrifices (simply removing the heart and casting the body down the temple steps) took place on the god’s temple each day of the multi-day festival. As there were numerous festivals to the multitude of Aztec gods throughout the year, if such numbers were typical for each ritual, this could easily add up to hundreds of victims each year—or many more. This leads to obvious questions: Why so much death, why so much blood, and why did the heart and head become so important? Explaining Aztec Religion

One theory offered to explain the significant level of human sacrifice involves the act of cannibalism. Michael Harner suggested that the minimal level of protein available to Aztecs was responsible for the human sacrifices that then led to cannibalistic consumption of the victims’ bodies (Harner 1977). This interpretation was immediately countered by others who seated the explanation of

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 209

Figure 11.13 A rtistic rendering of the Xipe Totec gladiatorial ritual; the priest wears a flayed skin and watches the battle (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

ritual cannibalism in contexts more deeply enmeshed in Aztec society. Price suggested that cannibalism functioned to reinforce the sociopolitical hierarchy existent in the empire. Kings, nobles, and heads of households were responsible for the provision of necessary and luxury goods to their families and other

210  Religions in the Americas

dependents; these would include precious stones and metals, feathers, and human flesh (Price 1978). The consumption of a captive’s flesh meant people were ingesting the essences of tonally and teyolia residual within it, adding an important symbolic and religious aspect to cannibalism far beyond a need for protein. In addition, many argue that there was sufficient protein from beans, insects, meat, and fish to more than satisfy human nutritional needs, and thus, the cannibalism was better explained by more ritual and symbolic motives (Ortiz de Montellano 1978; Smith 2011). The Aztec focus on the human head, heart, blood, and the practice of ritual cannibalism is readily explained by their cultural history and environmental setting. Two themes are prominent: Nearly everything the Aztecs achieved was through aggression and warfare, and their precarious position in swamplands at the edge of a lake made successful agriculture both difficult and an absolute priority. In the sun-drenched landscape of the Aztec homeland, rainfall was a crucial element in chinampas-style agriculture. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that Aztec religion featured a strongly rooted belief in the power of warfare and the warrior, the fertility of the earth, and the need to ensure the continued success of both. The most prized sacrificial victims were those captured on the battlefield, carrying powerful teyolia in the heart, with concentrated tonalli in the head and body, both sacred and nourishing to Aztec gods (Tiesler and Olivier 2020). Not only did warriors give up their hearts as well as provide impressive contributions to skull racks in devotion to the gods but they also reenacted the actual act of battle in the Flayed Man ritual dedicated to Xipe Totec. Warfare, so crucial to the origins and success of the Aztec empire, played an integral role in their religion as well. Blood, shed on the battlefield at death, was a life-giving force for the gods and the earth. Priestly bloodletting not only demonstrated devotion but also provided the deities with a steady diet as well as ensured the continued health of the earth. The blood that sprang from the opened chest of sacrificial victims, spraying the temple as the body tumbled down the steps, symbolized the feeding of the gods, especially the sun, who, in turn, ensured a fertile and productive earth. In the same fashion, drops of blood and tears, essential human liquids, symbolized the rains falling upon the earth to feed the crops. Even in Xipe Totec’s ceremony that featured a ritual battle, the notion of fertility is apparent in the flayed skin of humans representing spring renewal, new growth, and sustenance. At the heart of Aztec religion was a reflection of those things most crucial to their continued success in the region, mastery of the battlefield, and the acquisition of sufficient resources to feed a large and growing population. In addition to utter belief in the power of blood and heart to ensure Aztec survival and success, ritual sacrifice in their religion served a somewhat more secular need as well: Establishing and maintaining control over both the Aztec population and those cultures and kingdoms surrounding the empire. Although many of the neighboring cultures practiced human sacrifice, not all did, and few

Mesoamerica and the Religions of Empire 211

were as prolific in their ritual sacrifices as the Aztecs. Nobles and leaders from nearby and more distant regions were periodically invited to visit Tenochtitlan and attend one of the many elaborate ceremonies. Occasionally, an attendee witnessed the sacrifice of some of his own warriors captured in battle (Smith 2011). That Aztec gods demanded so much of their people—and that Aztecs were so faithful—demonstrated not only the power and ferocity of the Aztec deities but the dedication of their people as well. Furthermore, that Aztec rulers could command such utter compliance from their subjects, both elite and common alike, was testament to the power of the Aztec leadership over people and region. The bloody and elaborate ceremonies may have given significant pause to any enemy—or ally—thinking of defying the hegemony of the Aztec king and empire. That one’s warriors—or even the ruler himself—might be featured at a future ritual may have helped to suppress thoughts of refusal to pay tribute to the Aztec coffers. In this way, the Aztec religion may have functioned as a very effective control over those subsumed into the Aztec empire. Aztecs believed utterly in the power of blood and the importance of sacrifice, but that did not mean they were anxious to give up their own lives at future rituals. However, in addition to enemy warriors, Aztecs themselves were featured at ritual sacrifices, including women and children, drawn from both the slave and commoner classes, and very occasionally, from the elites. Offering sacrifices was, in addition to serving on the battlefield, a type pipiltin “tax” payment to the state (Ingham 1984). Providing a sacrificial victim, whether captive, slave, or family member, showed one’s dedication not only to the religion but also to the health and power of the state and rulers. In addition, if you were not from the slave class, the most efficient road to becoming a sacrificial victim was to cause a problem in Aztec society: Commit a crime or some sort of moral infraction, fall into debt and need to sell a family member or oneself for sacrifice, or indeed, defy in some way the Aztec leadership. To satisfy a debt or rectify a legal or moral transgression, the Aztec state deemed sacrifice a noble repayment as one was giving one’s own teyolia, tonalli, and lifeblood to the gods (Graulich 1997). Human sacrifice glorifies the power and control of the Aztec state and its rulers over the people, but it served as a vehicle for lesser nobles and even commoners to advance in that social hierarchy, ensuring their continued quest for suitable sacrifices to the Aztec religious machine. Aztec notions of blood, warfare, fertility, and power were inextricably bound with the Aztec view of their own society. Conclusion The expansionary dynamics carried out by the Aztecs in the fifteenth century may have continued well into the sixteenth had not disaster, in the form of Hernando Cortés and his conquistadores, descended in 1519. The Spaniards, with their canons, guns, metal swords, and horses, used fighting techniques and strategies that became insurmountable by Mesoamerican cultures. Furthermore, the

212  Religions in the Americas

Spaniards fought with no regard to preserving the life of their enemy warriors, a practice of great importance to the Aztecs. Upon his first visit to Tenochtitlan, Cortés took Moctezoma II captive and took over the rule of the city. It was not long after this that Moctezoma was killed under suspicious circumstances. In the early months of 1520, the Spaniards were forced to flee the city but only after terrible battles and much bloodshed. Cortés regrouped, aided by additional Spanish soldiers and thousands of Mesoamerican warriors from lands conquered by the Aztecs. Cortés laid siege to Tenochtitlan in the summer months of 1521, and by mid-August, the city had fallen (Smith 2011). Spanish weapons and horses, aided by disease, mainly in the form of smallpox, defeated one of the greatest war machines of ancient Mesoamerica. The Spanish zeal for spreading Catholicism quickly set about destroying Aztec sacred monuments and replacing Aztec rituals and beliefs with Catholic practices. Most Aztecs who did not succumb to disease or war were enslaved. The Spanish built the capital city of their colony, New Spain, over the Tenochtitlan. Today, that city is known as Mexico City.

Chapter 12

Lords and Gods Religions of Andean South America

The west coast of South America offers a beautiful but formidable landscape. A narrow strip of desert hugs the coast, while roughly 100 kilometers inland, the Andes begin their rise to peaks that reach over 6,500 meters. Rivers originating in the snow-covered peaks created deep valleys where humans settled, domesticated plants and animals, and developed material cultures, religions, and buildings that are today known as the ancient cultures of the Andes. An Early Andean Center: Chavín De Huántar By 8,000–6,000 years ago, ancient Peruvians were domesticating peanuts, cotton, and manioc (a tuberous root crop); some lines of evidence suggest that squash may have been cultivated as early as 10,000 years ago (Dillehay et al. 2007). By 4,000 years ago, people were living in fairly permanent settlements and were building ceremonial centers in U-shaped patterns. At least by 950 bce, people began building just such a structure at Chavín de Huántar (Figure 12.1) (Burger 2019). The Chavín culture is important to Andean culture history, not just for its architectural elements but for its art as well. Like Olmec cosmology for Mesoamerica, the Chavín sculpture seems to have set the standard for iconographic representation of Andean religious imagery. The valley in which Chavín is situated rests at an elevation of 3,000 meters. Residents had access to good agricultural lands and ample water from two rivers. Chavín also rested along an important trade route, offering residents access to various goods passing from highland to desert and providing Chavín residents with a rich selection of raw resources, food items, and constant exchange of information with travelers along the route. The original Chavín ceremonial center consists of a complicated set of structures built in phases. Originally identified as the “Old Temple” and “New Temple” (Burger 1992), archaeological investigation now suggests instead more continuous additions to this massive structure (Kembel 2008; Rick 2013a). The original “Old Temple” was a low platform building in a U-shape, with a northern wing wider than the southern one, making the arms of the U asymmetrical. In DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-16

214  Religions in the Americas

Figure 12.1 Map of Pre-Inca Andean sites and regions discussed in the chapter (map by T. Edwards and S. R. Steadman)

front was a rectangular courtyard. This stone structure had walls that soared up to 16 meters high, with no evident doorways in the outer walls. The only doorways into the original structure were inside the U; these led to various galleries named by archaeologists according to features found within them (Figure 12.2). Thus, the “Gallery of the Labyrinths” is a complex maze of passageways, and the “Gallery of Offerings,” beneath the courtyard, provided hundreds of ceramic vessels as well as partially burned human and animal bones (Burger 1992). At the center of the temple was the important Lanzón Gallery. Inside this gallery

Lords and Gods 215

Figure 12.2 S ketch of Chavín Old and New Temples with courts (drawing by S. R. Steadman).

was a carved granite stone, the “Lanzón,” which stands over 4.5 meters tall and tapers to narrower points at each end to resemble a knife (Figure 12.3). The top of one end fit into a notch in the gallery ceiling and the other rested in a floor notch. Carved on this stone is a human figure with feline fangs, adorned with necklace and ear plugs and a belt displaying snake-jaguar images. The placement of this stone at the center of the temple suggests it was the focal point (Kembel 2008; Rick 2013a), displaying the principal deity or cult image to which the temple was dedicated.

216  Religions in the Americas

Figure 12.3 Left: The Lanzón statue in the center of the Chavín temple. Right: A  roll out drawing of the carvings on the statue (drawings by R. Jennison).

Archaeologists have offered various interpretations for the numerous temple galleries (Rick 2017). Some suggest they were storehouses for perishable goods in a difficult climate; others assert they were dedicated to rites and ceremonies; a third possibility is that they served as housing for religious personnel or initiates, perhaps as a type of cloister to provide training in religious practices (Kembel and Rick 2004). In later centuries the Inca built structures to house initiates, so it is possible that those associated with ritual at Chavín were housed within this temple. Human bones discovered in the galleries are sometimes carved, sometimes burned (such as those in the Gallery of Offerings), possibly indicating some sort of sacrifice activity. The layout of the chambers created intense acoustical qualities so that the playing of instruments, perhaps accompanying rituals, would seem almost otherworldly (Kolar 2017). The exterior of this earlier temple is decorated with carved reliefs on black limestone and white granite quarried from outside the Chavín Valley; these colors and stone types may have been important elements in the religious imagery. The meaning and mythology of the sculptures are still largely opaque

Lords and Gods 217

to archaeologists, but there is little doubt that they tell the complex story of Chavín religious beliefs. There was clearly a significant component of animal symbolism in Chavín mythology; represented on the temple walls are carvings of anthropomorphic figures and animal combinations, including elements of snakes, jaguars, raptors, and caimans (alligators), along with geometrical forms carved in complex patterns. The deity represented on the Lanzón, possibly their supreme god, features various elements of these creatures. One possibility is that these animals represent shamanic activities and even the transformation of shaman to animal during ritual activity (Castro-Klarén 2021). Examples of temple sculptures depicting anthropomorphic figures holding a cactus that produces a hallucinogenic substance further supports the association of shamanism and animal images (Burger 2011). Not long after the original construction, more structures (e.g., the “New Temple”) were added to one wing of the original temple, likely between 850–550 bce (Rick 2013b). This was a time of population growth at Chavín due to their expanding trade-based economy and increased agricultural output. At this time, the southern arm of the original temple was enlarged to become a massive rectangular structure. A large plaza was created in front of this new building, with an interior rectangular sunken court. On top of the new building were two identical structures, each two-roomed and easily visible from the plaza in front of the new addition. There was limited access to these rooftop buildings through a complicated set of interior passageways; this suggests that only special personnel could gain entrance in order to carry out ceremonies in these rooftop structures (Burger 1992). This later temple building also featured galleries and halls. On the eastern side of the later temple, facing the plaza, was a portal (doorway) built of black limestone and white granite; 20 meters east was a black and white stairway leading into the plaza. The exterior of this later building is also covered in carvings, exhibiting the same themes as those represented on the earlier structure. However, the degree of complexity increased to the extent that it is difficult to pick out individual components in some parts of the relief, though residents at Chavín almost certainly recognized the meaning behind these carvings. The only clearly new iconography are the depictions of a monkey, a non-raptor winged creature, and a viscacha (a rodent resembling a rabbit). Whether these are new deities or only more detailed representations of ancient Chavín myths is unknown. The deity represented on the Lanzón stone may have been at the center of a “Cult of the Lanzón,” which was fairly widespread. At the site of Kuntur Wasi, several hundred kilometers northwest of Chavín de Huántar, are several U-shaped complexes with sunken courtyards, decorated with sculpture in the Chavín style (Rick 2013b). Elite burials within the complex at Kuntur Wasi suggest leaders, perhaps with religious duties, warranted the building of monumental structures (Kembel 2008). Growing evidence suggests that, along with increasing population and economic success, class stratification was also developing at Chavín,

218  Religions in the Americas

tied closely to the expanding power of the Lanzón cult, the control of which may have rested in the hands of a growing elite class (Rick 2004). As the Chavín cult spread, those who sought leadership roles discovered that, if they associated themselves closely with the religion, they could attain superior wealth and power within their societies. It is perhaps here in the Chavín period that religion and power became irrevocably linked in Andean culture. At some time around 500 bce, the Chavín temple was damaged, likely by an earthquake (Rick 2013b), and the cultural complex began to unravel. By approximately 400 bce, residents had abandoned their homes and the temple (Burger 2011). Before the Inca: The Moche and The Nazca As Chavín power and influence faded, other cultural complexes began to emerge, both in the Andean valleys as well as along the coast. On the northern Peruvian coast, the Moche culture began to rise approximately 2,000 years ago and persisted until its demise at the end of the eighth century ce. Far to the south another culture known as the Nazca appeared by 200 bce but collapsed in concert with the Moche. The Moche

Situated on the Moche River in the Andes, several powerful centers ruled by Moche (also known as Mochica) leaders began to appear by at least ca. 200 ce, exhibiting a powerful presence on the Andean coast until ca. 900 ce (Koons 2014; Quilter and Koons 2012). By 400 ce, the various Moche polities controlled much of the northern Peruvian coast; Moche pottery and architecture dominated at settlements to the north and south (Chapdelaine 2011). What had been dispersed agricultural settlements prior to Moche domination had become larger population centers (such as Sipán, described later) controlled by local Moche or Moche-loyalist rulers. The Moche people used canal-based irrigation agriculture to grow a variety of crops; they hunted for meat and had domesticated llamas and guinea pigs. The construction and constant maintenance of their irrigation system required enormous labor, almost certainly controlled by the state. The same can be said of the construction of the enormous religious buildings at the Moche capital. The Moche are known for their extraordinary skill in producing metalwork crafts in gold, silver, and alloys, but they are perhaps best known for their ceramics. Moche vessels depict scenes from daily life, ceremonial events, religion, and warfare. A great deal of what we know about Moche culture and religion is derived from these images, which are echoed in the murals on their temple walls. There are many elements in Moche culture that indicate a strong belief in symbolic duality (Bourget 2006). The dualist principles appear to represent opposites, or perhaps complementary pairs: sun and moon, man and woman, fresh and salt water, and even life and death. Dualism is found in later Andean

Lords and Gods 219

religions, including those of the Inca; possibly such beliefs had their origins in the Moche culture. The two large religious buildings at the Moche center, known as huacas, are platform structures. The larger, Huaca del Sol, was built near the river and today stands 40 meters high, though it was likely much taller during Moche times; it spans the length of nearly four football fields (340 meters) and is wider than three put side by side (160 meters). Huaca del Sol was built in increasingly higher sections, with the highest area in the center likely the location of the most important ceremonies. The bricks used to build the platforms bear maker’s marks so that the various stages of construction could be organized according to Moche work groups (and today, traced by archaeologists). Contained inside the platforms were rooms, courts, and burials. A combination of environmental destruction and Spanish looting (shortly after colonization) has left Huaca del Sol in ruins. The other platform structure, Huaca del Luna, stands 500 meters away near the slopes of the inland mountain range. The rocky outcrops of the mountain range, visible behind the platform, are found on Moche pottery depicting scenes of ceremonies and sacrifice (Moseley 2001). This complex also featured courts on the platform summits, decorated with murals, displaying Moche deities and ritual scenes (Figure 12.4). High-status burials were also found in this complex, but far fewer than those in Huaca del Sol. Huaca del Luna may have been used specifically for ritually based activities, perhaps reserved for burials of religious personnel, while Huaca del Sol may have been used for more secular or state ceremonies and events, serving as burial grounds for the royalty and elites. One area of Huaca del Luna yielded evidence of burials, possibly sacrificed during times of torrential rains (caused by the El Niño phenomenon), perhaps to urge the deities to cease the onslaught from the skies (Bourget 2001). Spread between the two huacas were numerous buildings. Many were residential compounds housing extended families; others were dedicated to craft production but may have also been the homes of the craft makers (Moseley 2001). Unfortunately, like Huaca del Sol, much of this portion of the Moche capital is lost to environmental damage and Spanish destruction. One of the clearest indicators of social stratification in the Moche culture is the differentiation in tomb construction and goods buried with the dead. The power and wealth of the Moche lords are demonstrated by the burials at Sipán, several hundred kilometers up the coast from the Moche Valley. At Sipán, a burial containing the “Old Lord” and a younger man approximately 40 years of age was discovered in the late 1980s (Figure 12.5). This younger man may have been a “warrior priest” like those depicted on Moche ceramics. Burial gifts in these tombs were fabulously rich, including items of gold and silver, ceramics, textiles, and various items of clothing adorning the noble burials. Next to the warrior priest tomb was the burial of a man whose feet had been cut off; the excavator determined this individual was meant to guard this lord’s tomb, hobbled perhaps to keep him from abandoning his post. Other burials of both men and women surrounding the main

220  Religions in the Americas

Figure 12.4 Top: Drawing of the two religious structures at the Moche capital (drawing by S. R. Steadman); Bottom: Example of the types of frescoes found at Huaca del Luna at the Moche capital (photo 50857165 © Jesse Kraft|Dreamstime.com).

tombs were most likely servants meant to attend the lords in the next life. DNA evidence has determined that the highest-ranking burials at Sipán were maternally related, suggesting leadership was hereditary (Bourget 2008). The notion of duality discussed earlier is clearly expressed at Sipán. The burials accompanying the warrior priest consisted of two women—one at his feet

Lords and Gods 221

Figure 12.5 Reconstruction of the Sipán burials showing the “warrior priest” and the accompanying burials surrounding him (photo  180049222  © Marktucan|Dreamstime.com).

and one at his head—and two men—one on each side of him; individuals of the same sex face in the opposite direction from one another. These burials therefore represent the duality of sex (and possibly gender) as well as space and direction. There was also a visual duality in the placement of grave goods. Gold objects (possibly representing the sun) were placed on the right side of the body; silver (possibly symbolizing the moon), on the left side. Identical objects and ornaments in both gold and silver accompanied the lords, and many objects were made of equal parts of both metals (Bourget 2006). Depictions on Moche vessels appear to show important ritual activities and, perhaps, mythic themes. It is difficult to understand all the symbolic elements represented, but the actions portrayed are a trove of information about Moche daily life and ritual activities. One theme involves the capture of enemy warriors who are then led to a huaca for sacrifice (Verano 2008). A Moche warrior, grasping a rope tied around the naked and painted or tattooed captive’s neck, leads him to the top of the huaca, where the victim’s throat is cut. One frequently seen figure is shown consuming a substance with a spatula, perhaps coca in order to attain ASC; this individual may be a shaman who is closely associated with the sacrificial process (Uceda 2008). These scenes on vessels and huaca walls portray real events, as sacrificial victims have been excavated near the Huaca del Luna complex. In depictions on vessels and murals, an important personage holds the goblet to capture blood from the slain victim; interestingly, study of these scenes indicates the person holding the goblet is

222  Religions in the Americas

female, identified as a “priestess of the moon” (Cordy-Collins 2001). Possibly, like the Aztecs, the Moche believed the human body, and perhaps specifically the blood, contained powerful qualities and was thus consumed by Moche elites during these ceremonies. Large ceremonial goblets found in the Sipán tombs and elsewhere may have been part of this sacrifice ceremony (Figure 12.6).

Figure 12.6 Artistic rendering of Moche sacrifice of warriors. A  Moche lord prepares to drink from the goblet that holds the victim’s blood (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

Lords and Gods 223

As in the Chavín culture, Moche mural and ceramic artworks depict several supernatural beings that combine human and animal elements. However, one of the difficulties in identifying Moche deities is that some of the anthropomorphic forms illustrated on ceramics may instead represent humans with supernatural or animal characteristics (Bourget 2006) or people wearing costumes during certain ceremonies. The most ubiquitous is known as the Decapitator God, found in mural art, on jewelry, and on ceramics. He is usually shown as a human/spider combination but sometimes has wings or other animal characteristics. In his spider form, he may be modeled on a spider found in the region (A. argentata) that is yellow and silver in color; this may have conformed to the Moche notion of dualism, representing gold and silver and earth and sky (Alva Meneses 2008). He is recognized by what he holds in his hands: A human head in one and a knife in the other. He may be the god that oversees the ritual sacrifice of enemy warriors, and thus, was a very important deity. By 900 ce, the Moche polity had essentially collapsed, likely the result of environmental factors commencing in the late sixth century, including drought and torrential floods caused by El Niño weather patterns. These events damaged crop production, and flood damage eroded trade and travel routes. The Moche center itself suffered a flood that buried much of the settlement under silt and debris. Nearly a millennium later, Spanish conquistadores completed the almost total destruction of the Moche capital in their search for gold. The Nazca

The core of the Nazca culture (also known as the Nasca) lies in the Ica and Nazca valleys at the southern extent of the Andes region, a very dry and difficult landscape. The Nazca (ca. 100 bce–750 ce), like their Moche counterparts, made beautifully decorated pottery and textiles. However, it is their geoglyphs for which they are most famous. These lines were carved into the desert landscape between the Nazca and Ingenio valleys. They depict geometric forms, animals, plants, and a few humanlike creatures; many of these are hundreds of hectares in size. Nazca religion was focused less on anthropomorphic deities and more on a spirit world inhabited by creatures of the earth; it is these that are most commonly found in their art and geoglyphs. In adapting to their dry environment, the Nazca had developed sophisticated drainage systems that fed water into their agricultural fields. Nazca homes were built on the valley slopes, leaving the flatter valley floors available for farming. In the mid-sixth century, a drought (which also affected the Moche) caused the Nazca culture to fade from prominence. The Nazca capital, Cahuachi, rested on the banks of the Nazca River, approximately 50 kilometers inland from the ocean. Cahuachi featured many mounds and ceremonial structures. Builders made use of the naturally hilly landscape, piling up debris on an existing hill and then facing it with adobe bricks to create a small or medium-sized huaca. Cahuachi was largely uninhabited and functioned

224  Religions in the Americas

as a ceremonial center to which people made pilgrimages for rituals, feasts, and ceremonies (Silverman 2002). Huacas held graves, provided platforms for ceremonies, and contained large vessels for the storage of ceremonial items, including textiles. The largest huaca, known as the “Great Temple,” was at least 20 meters high and featured rooms, courtyards, and a large central plaza. Excavations revealed evidence of feasting at which hundreds of llamas and guinea pigs were sacrificed and then consumed. Cahuachi was probably chosen as the sacred center of the Nazca culture for two reasons: The natural hilly topography looked ready-made for the construction of numerous huacas; and the water table, so near the surface here, made it seem as if water sprang from the earth (Silverman and Proulx 2002). The Nazca may have operated like a confederacy of allied, kin-related groups who practiced agriculture in small settlements along the Nazca and Ingenio valleys and then gathered at Cahuachi at specified times. This does not mean, however, that the Nazca did not possess a warrior class. They were, indeed, capable of defending themselves, as images on their pottery attest. Like Moche ceramics, Nazca vessels portray people in many different settings. Pots show male farmers in loincloths and caps and war scenes in which face-painted warriors in tunics carry clubs, spears, and atlatls; at times, they sport elaborate headdresses (Silverman and Proulx 2002). Unlike the Moche and the Aztecs (see Chapter 11), the Nazca apparently did not care about capturing enemy warriors alive for later sacrifice. Rather, the Nazca practiced the taking of trophy heads, demonstrated in their art and in archaeological remains. Excavations at Nazca settlements have recovered human skulls with holes drilled in the cranium for inserting a cord, held in place by a toggle inside the skull, presumably for ease in carrying; thorns were used to pin the lips shut, and the skull was stuffed with cloth and plant matter (Proulx 2001). Ceramics depict warriors and adult males carrying trophy heads (Figure  12.7). Interestingly, some Nazca burials contain headless skeletal remains, perhaps victims of the head-taking practice. In some of these burials, Nazca “head jars,” vessels that are roughly head-shaped and depict a human face, are possibly meant to “replace” the head of the deceased (Figure 12.8). The meaning of trophy heads is not clearly understood, although they sometimes appear painted on vessels with plants growing from their mouths. This leads some archaeologists to suggest that the Nazca believed the human head carried a great deal of ritual power and that trophy heads were an important part of ceremonies influencing fertility, rain, and successful crop yields (Proulx 2001). Trophy heads also appear in ritual scenes that are funereal, suggesting that some type of ancestral importance should be attributed to this practice, although heads taken on the battlefield seem to belong to those from more distant regions. However, head-taking may have been practiced off the battlefield as well, since skulls from women and children have been recovered (Silverman and Proulx 2002). After their use, trophy heads

Lords and Gods 225

Figure 12.7 Artistic rendering of Nazca warrior with trophy head (drawing by L. D. Hackley).

were buried in caches; in one case, 48 were found together (Silverman 2002). In addition to taking the head of a valiant enemy warrior, retrieving heads from departed kin members may have been part of Nazca ancestor veneration. In this complex Nazca belief system, trophy heads seem to have tied together the dual notions of ancestral veneration and the health and fertility of the earth and the living. Scientific analysis suggests that at least some trophy heads came from the Nazca people themselves, further attesting to their possible role in ancestor veneration (Knudson et al. 2009). Nazca deities are depicted on ceramics, and though we do not understand the symbolic meaning behind them, we can be certain that animals were an important part of the cosmology. One powerful supernatural being, called the “Anthropomorphic Mythical Being” by archaeologists, combines the characteristics of humans with many animals. Other important beings include the Killer Whale, the Horrible Bird, and the Spotted Cat. Nazca burials have provided evidence that humans, perhaps shamans, may have dressed as representations of these creatures (Silverman and Proulx 2002). In an examination of the ritual scenes on vessels,

226  Religions in the Americas

Figure 12.8 “Head jar” depicting a human face that could be used to replace the head in a Nazca burial (Metropolitan Museum of Art, CC BY-SA 1.0).

especially those in which these supernatural beings appear, it is clear to archaeologists that a main concern of the Nazca people was agricultural fertility. Water, a crucial resource in such a dry climate, was represented by the Killer Whale deity; the sky, provider of sun and water, was overseen by the Horrible Bird god (various types of raptors); and the earth from which healthy plants grew was represented by the Spotted Cat, or jaguar (Silverman and Proulx 2002). A people dependent on rain-fed agriculture in a desert landscape would be wise to worship deities who ensured that the agricultural cycle remained secure and fertile. The famous Nazca geoglyphs were carved into the desert pampas, which are covered by a thin, pebbled topsoil that overlies a white alluvial layer. By removing the topsoil, bright white lines emerge, visible from miles away. The simplest geoglyphs are straight lines, some 20 kilometers long, often connecting two points or traversing a complex pathway across the landscape (Ruggles and Saunders 2012). More famous are the giant images of creatures that make sense only when viewed from above. Some geoglyphs were created over older ones, possibly representing the intersection of two symbolic messages, or perhaps the older geoglyph was no longer relevant. Animal and anthropomorphic images such as birds, a monkey (Figure 12.9), several Killer Whale images, and a figure known as “Astronaut” or “Owl Man,” are quite complex but are created without

Lords and Gods 227

distortion or mistake, even though some are as much as 200 times the size of the creature itself (Silverman and Proulx 2002). What the meaning and function of these drawings were is a subject of great debate. Several scholars have suggested that the lines were created by Nazca

Figure 12.9 P hotos of Nazca lines showing a spider (ID  3951185  ©  Jarnogz | Dreamstime.com), a bird (ID  3901731  ©  Jarnogz | Dreamstime. com), and a monkey (Diego Delso, Delso photo, 2015, CC BY-SA).

228  Religions in the Americas

feet, worn into the alluvium by people on pilgrimage or in ritual performance (Silverman and Proulx 2002). The fact that some lines portray images of supernatural beings also found on Nazca pottery suggests that some or all of the images were meant to represent important elements in Nazca cosmology. Perhaps they demonstrated dedication to the gods and point, in some cosmological way, to important and sacred places (the sky, mountains, valleys) that provided the crucial water for Nazca crops. Recent research offers an explanation both cosmological and geological. Some of the geoglyphs coincide with subterranean aquifers and water channels that eventually led to Nazca settlements and their agricultural fields (Johnson et al. 2002). The geoglyphs in this scenario embed images of their belief system onto the actual sources of life-giving water, perhaps ensuring its continued flow and the earth’s fertility. Research will undoubtedly continue to develop explanations for these extraordinary images carved into the earth’s face. A Patchwork of Andean Kingdoms While the Moche and Nazca built their cultures close to the coast, another culture was building its first state in the Andean highlands. On the shores of Lake Titicaca, the center known as Tiwanaku emerged by 500 ce (Figure  12.10). The Tiwanaku people developed widespread trade networks and farmed agricultural fields stretching around the city for many kilometers (Stanish 2013). The ceremonial center consisted of a monumental temple within a large enclosure ringed by carved stones. Open plazas and sunken courts suggest that the public could view rituals carried out in the ceremonial center, perhaps during ritual pilgrimages (Janusek 2006; Stanish 2013). A rain-fed moat surrounded the complex. A central deity featured a “Staff God” with a rayed head, holding a staff and baring sharp teeth; accompanying this deity are attendants in both human and human-animal form (Janusek 2006). These public rituals may have served the dual purpose of uniting the Tiwanaku people in belief while also demonstrating the power of the state through the auspices of a somewhat terrifying deity (Delaere et al. 2019; Seddon 2013). The entire Tiwanaku moated ritual complex may have symbolically represented the Island of the Sun in Lake Titicaca, a place considered sacred by many Andean cultures. The Tiwanaku carried out rituals and sacrifice near the Island of the Sun, likely conducted by elites to help demonstrate their state and religious authority (Delaere et al. 2019). By 1000 ce, the Tiwanaku economic system had collapsed, perhaps due to drought. Meanwhile, farther north but still in the Andean highlands, another center rose to prominence around 500 ce, though it was more short-lived than Tiwanaku. The Wari were heavily involved in trade and eventually expanded their territorial holdings to cover a large region, including that which is later part of

Lords and Gods 229

Figure 12.10 Map of Inca period sites and regions (map by T. Edwards).

the Inca Empire. The Wari also celebrated a supreme deity who has iconographic similarities to the Tiwanaku Staff God. By 800 ce, Wari settlements were abandoned. Their demise may have been due to internal revolt, growing tensions generated by increasingly aggressive neighbors, or the same drought problem that affected Tiwanaku. As the Tiwanaku and Wari power structures subsided, many small kingdoms scattered across Andean valleys began competing for access to trade goods and arable land. In the north, a large state, known as the Chimú, arose around 1000 ce in the region previously controlled by the Moche. The Chimú, with their capital at Chan Chan, became the dominant force on the north coast over the next four centuries. As the Chimú state expanded southward in the fifteenth century, it began to encounter some of the smaller kingdoms that had

230  Religions in the Americas

developed in the wake of the Tiwanaku and Wari collapse, including a people known as the Inca. In the 1460s, the Chimú and Inca fought many battles, and eventually, the Inca prevailed. The Chimú, by 1470, became part of the expanding Inca Empire. The Inca Empire The Inca were one of the many small polities vying for power in the eleventh century. They were located north of Lake Titicaca, in the valleys surrounding their later capital at Cusco. In approximately 1400 ce, an Inca ruler named Viracocha came to the throne, expanding the Inca kingdom’s holdings. Viracocha’s son, Pachacutec, more firmly set the Inca empire on the road to supreme power in the Andean region, conquering rival kingdoms in all directions (D’Altroy 2005). Pachacutec rebuilt Cusco, which had been destroyed in battle, not as a town but as the seat of a great empire. Following Pachacutec came four more Inca rulers, each from Pachacutec’s family. These rulers continued expansion until the last of them, Atahualpa, ruled an empire that stretched nearly the length of the Andes region. Atahualpa ascended the throne in 1532 after defeating his brother Huascar in something of a civil war. However, Atahualpa had not even finished celebrating his victory before he got word that a group of foreigners, riding large beasts, were approaching the boundaries of his lands. The Spanish had arrived and the demise of the Inca had begun. In the course of their empire, there were at least a dozen Inca dynastic rulers, known as Sapa Inca (“Unique Inca”), who, with their queen (Coya), established royal palaces and households (panacas) wielding vast power over the empire’s military, administration, and religious world (Covey 2015). Sapa Inca were considered divine, descended from the Inca sun god Inti, who was considered the Inca supreme deity (D’Altroy 2015a). Rulership was, technically, a monarchy in which power passed from father to son, but the Inca political machine was far more complicated than a simple dynastic monarchy. Each emperor established a panaca, the palatial household that included aristocratic kin, who were later responsible for the upkeep of his mummified remains (and thereby inherited his wealth). By the time of the Spanish conquest, there were at least ten panaca compounds in Cusco, the Inca capital. At his death, the wealth of the Sapa Inca’s panaca stayed in his possession and in that of members of his family and household. Following his death, the Sapa Inca’s internal organs were extracted and his body was mummified (D’Altroy 2015a); household members then cared for him as if he was living, offering food, drink, and consulting him on major issues. Panacas became centers of worship where the dead Sapa Inca, who, after death, resided with Inti, was venerated (D’Altroy 2015a). However, in the Inca system known as “split inheritance,” the newly ascended Sapa Inca did not inherit from the deceased king. The new ruler

Lords and Gods 231

had to build up his own store of wealth and establish a panaca to provide for his own family and descendants who would care for him after his death. Newly crowned Inca rulers created wealth in their new panacas through two processes: By expanding the empire to acquire wealth from new lands; and by enforcement of mit’a, a labor-based tribute system. The mit’a system was a brilliant system that allowed the Inca to marshal the talents of their people (both ethnic Inca and those they conquered) to supply the needs of the state. Inca subjects gave their mit’a, or tribute, according to their skills. Cloth and crafts were made by women and used by Inca elites as gifts to high-ranking visitors and as rewards to people within the empire (Figure  12.11, top). Men performed services such as mining, building roads and structures, or when necessary, soldiering (D’Altroy 2005). The Inca also used resettlement in which families—or whole communities—would be transplanted to a new location, a system known as mitmaqkuna, serving to spread “Incaness” and to increase the yield of conquered lands (D’Altroy 2015b). This system extracted extensive wealth from the people which worked well for the Inca elites and helped them build an enormous empire, while also supplying a new Sapa Inca’s panaca. Incas kept their own records through the use of quipus, cords with a system of knots that acted as mnemonic devices (Figure  12.11, bottom). Each cord on the quipu held different styles of knots in different positions, and cords were dyed different colors; each of these characteristics contained information that could be “read” by an Inca. Quipus were used to record census information, keep track of amounts and types of materials stored, or reckon how many soldiers were needed and what equipment was required to outfit them (D’Altroy 2002). These devices also kept track of calendrical events, including when important rituals were to take place. Quipus also functioned as memory devices for oral traditions and myths, genealogical records, and property lists. While some quipus could be read by many people, others were individual to the keeper, based on a code developed by the maker of that quipu. These latter are nearly impossible for modern scholars to crack, but even those meant to record public records are difficult to decipher. Symbolic interconnections between colors, knot styles, cord lengths, and Inca cultural knowledge are impediments to the understanding of how to read these cord documents. The Inca attributed their origin to the creator deity, Viracocha, who brought the sun, moon, and stars from Lake Titicaca’s Island of the Sun. The humans created by Viracocha fanned out across the landscape and called more newly created people out of the earth (from crevices, caves, and springs). These peoples were the ethnic groups that later made up the Inca empire (and thereby, cosmologically, they were “Inca”). These features in the landscape became sacred to the peoples inhabiting it and were often the site of rituals and ceremonies. The people brought forth from the region near Cusco were the greatest of the humans, later to become the ruling Incas.

232  Religions in the Americas

Figure 12.11 Top: An Inca tunic made of cotton and camelid wool, exemplifying the finely woven cloth made primarily by Inca women; such garments were worn by Inca nobility (Cleveland Museum of Art, CC BY SA 1.0, public domain). Bottom: An example of an Inca quipu record-keeping device consisting of strings with knots denoting specific information (Courtesy Museum für Völkerkunde, Berlin; Photo by Gary Urton).

Lords and Gods 233 The Religion of the Incas

Inca religion was complex and diverse, made up of an imperial ideology featuring Inti, overlying the indigenous and local beliefs of the many ethnic groups in the empire. Three deities were at the top of the Inca pantheon: The creator god, Viracocha; the sun god, Inti; and Illapa, the god of thunder and lightning (Petrocchi 2015). Like the Aztecs, the Incas believed the world had been recreated several times and that they were living in a fifth age. In the previous four ages, Viracocha had created humans that were unacceptable. In the fifth, the age of the sun, he created the Incas, who were the best of the previous creations. In this myth, the importance of the creator god, Viracoacha, and Inti, the sun god, is evident. The third important Inca deity, Illapa, god of thunder, was responsible for controlling the weather. Illapa was envisioned as a warrior, the wielding of his weapons causing thunder and lightning in the sky. In a region of the world where drought was always a concern, the god who controlled the weather was extremely important. The Incas also recognized female deities, including MamaQuilla (“Mother Moon”) and Pachamama, a goddess of the earth (D’Altroy 2002; Von Hagen 2015). Mama-Quilla was Inti’s wife; gold was thought to have originated from the sweat of the sun, and silver, from the tears of the moon goddess. Pachamama was responsible for healthy crops and a successful harvest; she was especially important to farmers, who made regular offerings to her at stone altars in their fields. Many other lesser deities made up the Inca state pantheon, and temples to them were built in Cusco so that no deity was overlooked and balance and harmony could be maintained. The Inca ceremonial calendar was keyed to the agricultural cycle, with major seasonal rituals set at times of planting and harvest. Not a month went by without some ritual celebration. Rituals in Cusco were held in open plazas so that the populace could attend. Inti Raymi, the “Warriors’ Cultivation,” occurred in June at the winter solstice (D’Altroy 2002). At sunrise, the Inca ruler, elites, and religious personnel all proceeded to an open area of Cusco and began to sing praises to Inti; the singing went on until sunset. Also in attendance were mummies of the deceased Sapa Inca (Figure 12.12). If no mummy had been preserved, then statues of previous Inca rulers, which included bits of the ruler’s hair and fingernails, attended (D’Altroy 2015a). The entire complement of divine Inca rulers, therefore, attended this important ritual. During the day, offerings of meat and other items were sacrificed, and llamas were loosed for the commoners to catch and offer to the god. Inti Raymi lasted for over a week, and at its conclusion, the agricultural fields were plowed in order to begin the planting season. In addition to the panacas, where previous Sapa Inca could be worshipped, other temple complexes in the city were dedicated to individual deities such as Viracocha, Inti, and Illapa. Scattered throughout the larger Cusco environs were smaller shrines and sacred places that could be visited by the Andean commoners. A number of these involved critical water sources, where the Inca imperial

234  Religions in the Americas

Figure 12.12 Reenactment of the Inti Raymi Festival in Sacsayhuaman, Cusco (Cyntia Motta, 2008, CC BY-SA 3.0).

machine carefully controlled access to worship of this vital resource (Bray 2013). Besides the royal residences, panaca elites and other wealthy Inca had grand residences in the city as well as “country estates” out in the landscape. The magnificent architecture at Machu Picchu, including residential compounds, magazines, fountains, a temple complex, and an open plaza, may have been one of these country villas. Religious matters were overseen by priests who had considerable power in the Inca political system. Willaq Umu, the high priest of Inti, was responsible for anointing the new ruler as emperor; these priests may have also served as warriors in charge of the Inca army. Other priests assisted with sacrifices, led prayers, performed divinations, and offered oracular pronouncements. Also present at sacred rites were acllacuna, or “chosen women.” Young girls were chosen by Inca elites or sometimes volunteered from families in the empire to serve the state and the religion. Acallacuna then lived together and were instructed in Inca religion and important crafts such as the manufacture of valuable textiles and chicha, a fermented beverage used in rituals. When they reached adulthood, some went on to marry important elites, given as a type of reward for loyalty and dedicated service; some became ritual sacrifices to Inca deities such as Inti (Silverblatt 2015).

Lords and Gods 235

As was the case among their Andean predecessors, the Incas also practiced human sacrifice. Ceremonies involving human sacrifice were known as capacocha (also capac huacha), words that conveyed the idea of sacred water and possibly “sin” or transgression (Ceruti 2015). Human sacrifice was controlled and performed by the state; the frequent subjects of sacrifice were the empire’s children (Williams 2022). Occasions for human sacrifice included the ascension of a new Sapa Inca or the birth of a ruler’s son. Prior to the installation of a new ruler, towns across the empire were required to send several “perfect” children for the purposes of sacrifice. The children, dressed in finery, were paraded around the city of Cusco, viewed by residents, elites, and by the mummies or statues of rulers, brought out for the ceremony. Priests then sacrificed the children in honor of Viracocha, Inti, and possibly other Inca deities. Death was accomplished by various methods, including a blow to the head or strangulation (Reinhard and Ceruti 2010). At the death of a Sapa Inca, hundreds, and possibly thousands, of members of the panaca, including wives and servants, were sacrificed so that they might accompany him to the afterlife (Ceruti 2015). In addition to celebrations associated with the ruler, there were other occasions for capacocha. Successful military campaigns were celebrated by the sacrifice of prisoners of war; sacrifices to the main gods and lesser deities were made to ensure agricultural success; important construction projects such as new temples appear to have required the burial alive of children to dedicate the sacred space (Ceruti 2015). Children may have also been sacrificed at sacred places on the landscape in order to please the gods (Andrushko et al. 2011); accompanying the children in death were rich burial goods that may have been gifts to them or to the gods to whom they were dedicated. The Inca also believed that terrible circumstances such as natural disasters and illness of the ruler required atonement. This practice was also followed by the nearby Chimú state. In 1440, just prior to succumbing to Inca rule, the Chimú state sacrificed 140 children and 200 llamas during a time of heavy rains and flooding due to El Niño climatic patterns (Prieto et al. 2019). Similar capacocha may have taken place across the Inca empire. Besides ceremonies in Inca centers and on the landscape, capacocha took place on the dramatic mountaintops surrounding the Inca empire. Early in the twentieth century, looters discovered mummified human remains atop a mountain. The mummy was accompanied by many offerings, including pottery, some precious metal items, and other adornments that ended up on the antiquities market. This alerted archaeologists to the fact that other mummies probably remained undisturbed in the high Andes, and over the last decades, many have been located (Reinhard and Ceruti 2010). Perhaps the most famous of these is known as the “Ice Maiden,” found at the summit of Mount Nevado Ampato (Reinhard 2005). Discoveries on other mountaintops include children of both sexes, infants, other young women, and one young man (Ceruti 2004). Due to the extreme cold and aridity on these high mountains, these human sacrifices were remarkably preserved; often, laboratory tests could ascertain what the victims

236  Religions in the Americas

had consumed prior to death, how they were killed, and even, to some extent, what they looked like. Offerings left with them were also preserved, including clothing, adornments, ceramics, figurines of cloth and metal, shells, and even feathers. Children destined for these mountaintop sacrifices were probably identified through the same processes as in the other capacocha ceremonies. Spanish chroniclers report that sacrificial victims had to be beautiful, unblemished, and virginal (Ceruti 2004). It is quite possible, therefore, that young women led up the mountains for sacrifice were drawn from the acllacuna, the “chosen women” who were dedicated to the service of Inca religion. Death came to these victims in various forms, including strangulation, suffocation, exposure, burial alive, and a blow to the head. The latter may have been the least common, as the human offerings were to be “unblemished” when given to the gods. Mountaintop sacrifices were made to the main Inca deities Viracocha, Inti, and Illapa but also to local mountain gods who also had important roles in controlling the weather. The study of the 14-year-old “Ice Maiden,” discovered in 1996, revealed a great deal about her last hours. Archaeological remains at various points on Mount Nevado Ampato (her mummy was found at a height of 6,310 meters, or nearly 21,000 feet) indicate that a procession stopped at several “camps” on their trek up the mountain. It is estimated that approximately 15 people, including the girl, priests, and assistants (perhaps acllacuna), and a few other important pilgrims, ascended Mount Ampata in the several-day journey. At the summit, on a stone platform built for the purpose, offerings were made and the virgin was given a final meal, which may have included chicha which could have served to inebriate her prior to her death (Reinhard 2005). Her skull showed that she may have been killed by a blow to the head. She was then folded into a fetal position and wrapped in textiles. The girl was dressed in brightly colored clothing made of alpaca wool and then covered with a shawl held closed by a silver pin; she may have also worn a headdress ­(Figure 12.13). Statues of gold, silver, shell, ceramics, and other items ­accompanied her into her afterlife. Did the Ice Maiden and others go willingly up to the mountaintops? Some archaeologists suggest that the Inca people considered it a great honor to give their children to the deities and that those old enough, such as the Ice Maiden, may have been eager to join the realm of the gods in her next life. Conclusion There is a clear relationship between power and religion in ancient Andean civilizations, but the role of the environment is not a minor element in their belief systems. The topography and climate of the ancient Andes are dramatic. Breathtaking peaks rise above valleys and deserts, extreme cold contrasts with arid heat, and crops grown in narrow valleys barely suitable for agriculture are in constant need of adequate water. The combination of a growing elite class and

Lords and Gods 237

Figure 12.13 Artistic rendering of the “Ice Maiden” (far right) at the top of Mt. Nevado Ampato. After she consumed the chicha, she was sacrificed (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

the need to appeal to deities of the mountains, sky, and earth resulted in cultures that deified their rulers and people who obeyed their leaders in hopes of plentiful crops and adequate rains. An important element thrown into this mix is the recognition that ancestors were also revered, perhaps for their ability to enter the supernatural realm and influence the deities to treat their living descendants well. Among the Chavín and Moche—and especially the Inca—the most important ancestors were those from the nobility; Moche warrior priests and elites went to burial equipped to live well in the next life, accompanied by servants sacrificed to serve their masters. The Inca rulers were treated as gods after death, revered as vital connections to the deities who controlled the elements that would ensure a healthy and fertile kingdom. Respect for and obedience to Inca elites, especially the Sapa Inca, made for a ready workforce among the common population and convinced parents that giving up their offspring to sacrifice was a sacred and even joyous duty. Among these ancient Andean cultures, religion, environment, and power were as intricately interwoven as the beautiful textiles for which the region is so famous.

Part V

Religions in South and East Asia

Chapter 13

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond Religions in South Asia

The South Asian subcontinent is the homeland of two of today’s major traditions, Hinduism and Buddhism. Numerous other belief systems, such as Jainism and Sikhism, also developed there. Many aspects of Hinduism, as well as of modern Indian society, may have had roots in cultures that existed over four millennia ago, namely Harappan and post-Harappan societies. The Harappan civilization (Figure 13.1) flourished along the Indus River. The “Mature Harappan” period sees the rise of the culture by 2600 bce and waned by roughly 1900 bce. This is followed by the Late Harappan period (1900–1300 bce), which sees abandonment of Harappan centers and the collapse of the trade network (Kenoyer 2014). Climate change and the drying up of one of the critical rivers that ran through the Harappan heartland seems to be a main contributor to the collapse of the Mature Harappan system. At some point before, during, or after the Harappans, a non-indigenous people known as the Indo-Aryans entered South Asia (Mallory 1989; Parpola 2015; Renfrew 1987). The generally accepted view is that the Indo-Aryans, nomadic horse-riding pastoralists, left their homeland in the Russian Steppes, passed through Persia and Central Asia, to finally arrive in South Asia. The Indo-Aryans brought their language and belief system to South Asia, creating a mixture that resulted in the mosaic of ethnicities that makes up Indian culture today. South Asia Today India comprises hundreds of separate language groups and dialects, each with individualized cultural practices and economies. The languages of India fall into three primary families: Austro-Asiatic, Dravidian, and Indo-Aryan. AustroAsiatic speakers are found mainly in northeastern India. Dravidian language speakers are found mostly in the southern half of India; these languages are quite ancient and are widely regarded as the indigenous Indian languages. Indo-Aryan languages are spoken principally in the northern region, except for Hindi, which, along with English, is spoken throughout the country. The variety of language

DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-18

242  Religions in South and East Asia

Figure 13.1 Map of Harappan sites discussed in the chapter (map by T. Edwards and S. R. Steadman).

families across India is testimony to the ancient populations and their movements thousands of years ago. One of the best-known elements of Indian societal structure is its caste system. The caste system is easily 2,500 years old but may have roots reaching even further back. The caste system in India is divided into four varnas that are hierarchically ranked and within these are several thousand jati (occupational groups within a varna); the roots of the caste system are based on the

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 243

perceived purity and susceptibility to pollution associated with various occupations (Deshpande 2008; Sharma 1998). Traditionally, India’s caste system was closed to movement; from birth to death, one remained in their inherited varna and jati, married within them, and practiced the profession of one’s parents. In this way, the caste structure remained stable and unchanging. In historical times this ranked system has created multiple levels of intense inequality in Indian society, allowing those in the higher varnas to succeed economically and socially and those in the lower varnas to lag far behind (Deshpande 2008). This socioeconomic divide between varnas was exacerbated during British colonial rule in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Samarendra 2011). After independence and in their 1950 constitution, the Indian government has attempted to eradicate bias based on varna position, allowing greater occupational and social mobility (Deshpande 2008). This has met with some success in the twenty-first century, but the “caste system” is still present in India, particularly in more rural areas. The highest varna, the Brahmins, originally consisting of the priesthood, were considered the purest, based on their occupation. The lowest, or Shudra, varna included those who performed manual labor, including service jobs, farming (non-landowners), and pastoralism. The middle two varnas are known as the Kshatriyas, just below the Brahmins; the Kshatriyas were the nobles (landowners) and warriors, and below them were the Veishas, the merchants and business-related workers (Sharma 1998). One final group is the Dalit; they were effectively a fifth and lowest varna (though not traditionally considered a caste in Indian society). Dalits were relegated to performing the least pure occupations, those most susceptible to pollution, such as garbage collection and street cleaning. There were numerous entrenched rules about inter-varna relations, with strict guidelines regarding the maintenance of purity at varying levels. Today, the majority of people in India practice Hinduism, a remarkably complex and tolerant religion encompassing thousands of major and minor deities. The roots of Hinduism can perhaps be traced back to the third millennium bce; over time, new rituals and deities, including those brought to South Asia by the Indo-Aryans, produced the structure of the present-day religion. A well-known tenet of Hinduism is the concept that the human experience is a long cycle of life, death, and rebirth, with karma playing a role in determining the form of the rebirth (into a higher or lower being than in the previous life). The goal is moksha, or release from the life cycle, allowing unity with the universe. The structure of Hinduism is laid out in the Vedas, a set of four religious texts. The oldest and most important is the Rig Veda, which includes hymns to Indo-Aryan gods and stories about them. Second to the Rig Veda is the Atharva Veda, which details rituals to be used in the home. The Yajur Veda outlines rites and sacrifices to gods, and the Sama Veda contains hymns and chants for priests to recite. Each Vedic book contains four sections, and in each of the Vedas, one section is called the Upanishads.

244  Religions in South and East Asia

The Upanishads describe the philosophical basis of Hinduism, including the explanation of the karmic cycle and the pathway to moksha (Leaf 2014). The other three sections of each Vedic book are concerned with more practical issues: Hymns, chants, sacrifices, and prayers. Unlike the rest of the Vedas, which are decidedly polytheistic, the Upanishads seem to focus more on a single entity known as Brahman. Brahman is, in the Upanishads, representative of the one reality; everything, including other deities and human existence, are simply part of that Brahmanic reality. The Upanishads feature meditation rather than chants, rituals, or sacrifice; contemplation of the human relationship to Brahman is necessary to obtain release from the karmic cycle. The best contemplative attitude is the seated lotus position, allowing the mind to float free into the consideration of Brahman. Many believe that the Upanishads were not originally written as part of the Vedic literature, but rather, were added as a separate compilation, perhaps deriving from a separate non-Vedic tradition (Morris 2006; Weisgrau 2000). There are several thousand deities in Hinduism, but a select few of these are the most popular or considered the most important. Animals have a prominent place in Hindu mythology, serving both as “vehicles” for the deities and also forming a number of hybrid, human-animal beings. Three of the most powerful gods are Brahma (different from Brahman), Shiva, and Vishnu and all are considered extensions of Brahman. These three oversee all aspects of the human and earthly cycle: Brahma is the creator; Shiva, the destroyer; and Vishnu, the preserver (Figure 13.2). In modern Hinduism, Brahma is not as popular as the other two, as his work, creation, is completed and it is the actions of the other two that is more relevant to human life. Shiva is the most popular of the three deities. He is the god not only of death and destruction but of dance and reproduction (plant, animal, and human) as well. In iconography, Shiva is often seated in a lotus position and is regularly shown with three faces. As god of reproduction, Shiva, along with other gods, exhibits a “third eye” in his forehead, which stands as a sign of an all-seeing ability and spiritual wisdom related to the attainment of higher consciousness and seeing the true reality of the universe, a concept expressed in the Upanishads (Figure 13.3). Vishnu, nearly the opposite of Shiva, stands for love and forgiveness. Vishnu oversees the preservation of humanity and accomplishes this by having appeared on earth in nine forms (called avatars). One of these avatars is another god named Krishna. Krishna is known as a prankster, a playful and youthful deity who is the cowherd of the gods. One other deity of note here is Shakti, the goddess of fertility or female energy and a consort of Shiva. Shakti has a close association with the notion of earth and fertility and may have had pre-Aryan roots. Hindus worship according to the guidelines set out in the Vedas. Household altars are used for daily ritual, and temples dedicated to various deities provide public venues (Figure  13.4). There are two common factors in all religious activities, whether in house or temple: Fire and water. The purifying qualities of

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 245

Figure 13.2 Image in which Shiva (left), Vishnu (middle), and Brahma (right), approach the goddess Kali (not shown) in a painting from Himachal Pradesh, created around 1740 (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, public domain).

water have long been crucial to any Hindu ritual (Lahiri and Bacus 2004). Before attending any puja (ritual), all participants must bathe and ritually cleanse their hands. Water is also found in Hindu rituals at the time of death. First, to ensure karmic rebirth, the body must be burned in a funeral pyre. Following this, the remains (bones and ashes) must be cast upon water, preferably the holy Ganges River in northern India, but other places with sacred waters also suffice.

246  Religions in South and East Asia

Figure 13.3 Statue of Shiva in Bangalore, Karnataka; note the mark on the forehead which denotes the third eye of consciousness (Kalyan Kumar, 2006, CC BY-SA 2.0).

Fire is also used in making offerings and sacrifice rituals. Items sacrificed range from food and liquid (milk, ghee, fruits) all the way to the expansive royal “horse sacrifice” of past times. Through burning, the sacrifice reaches the deities via the rising smoke, conveyed upward by the fire god Agni. The elements of fire and water form important cores to most rituals, both in the household and in temples. The Harappan Civilization The Harappan culture, also known as the Indus Valley Civilization, comprises large cities surrounded by towns, villages, and hamlets, stretching from Baluchistan in Pakistan to the modern-day city of Mumbai in India. This culture was

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 247

Figure 13.4 P hoto of a typical household altar in a Hindu household in India (photo by S. R. Steadman).

named “Harappan” after the early discovery of the city by the same name, first excavated in the late 1800s and again beginning in 1920. Following World War II, new excavations revealed much more about “Harappan” sites, though we do not know how the people of this culture referred to themselves and their region.

248  Religions in South and East Asia Harappan Settlements and Societal Structure

The major Harappan cities were stretched along the Indus and Saraswati Rivers and their tributaries and showed a remarkable penchant for city planning. The larger known cities include Lothal, Chanhu Daro, Kalibangan, and Dholavira; the largest is Mohenjo Daro, over 200 hectares in size, supported a population of as many as 40,000 people (Kenoyer 2014). Harappa is the second largest city, at over 150 hectares; other cities range in size from 80 to 100 hectares. Many Harappan cities were laid out on a grid (Figure 13.5), with streets and buildings conforming to the four cardinal directions. Broad avenues cross-cut the cities; smaller streets and alleys created city blocks or neighborhoods (Wright 2010). Harappan cities were generally built on artificially elevated platforms to guard against inundation by spring floods. The cities and internal areas were often surrounded by mudbrick walls. These walls may have provided protection, but also served other purposes, such as creating “neighborhoods” or providing additional flood protection (Kenoyer 1998, 2014). Cities usually had a higher area, known as “the citadel,” where public buildings were built. The majority of residences and craft and market areas were in the lower parts of the cities. On the citadels at Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, large buildings once thought to be public granaries served some service for the city, perhaps as public assembly halls or for storage of trade goods (Kenoyer 1998; Wright 2010). Harappans were excellent craft makers, working in such media as clay, metal, shell, stone, and cloth, trading their goods as far afield as Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf (Shinde 2016). Jewelry was very popular among the Harappans; terracotta statues, another common craft, show both men and women sporting bracelets, necklaces, earrings, and headdresses. Coppersmiths made a variety of metal tools and weapons, and artisans worked in soft stones such as steatite crafted stamp seals, statues, and figurines. Harappan pottery featured painted designs of Harappan life and animals indigenous to the region. Harappan houses generally conformed to a standard plan, with rooms surrounding an open courtyard; walls suggest houses were at least two stories high. Each house held both a bathing room and a separate latrine; waste water flowed out of the house to drains in the streets (Wright 2010). Houses varied somewhat in size and quality, ranging from a small family home to those large enough to house a substantial extended family; some homes were built of higher-quality fired brick and others, of mudbrick (Kenoyer 2014). There were also craft shops near the city gates. Certain areas near the edges of cities were dedicated to pyrotechnic crafts such as metal working and ceramic production. Other crafts were produced within homes or in streets near the homes (Kenoyer 2014; McIntosh 2008). Harappan houses had elevated doorsteps, creating a kind of stoop. This allowed residents to sit or stand in front of their homes, possibly visiting with neighbors or passersby. Harappan city planners also made certain there were ample market areas, often near the gates. There may have been artisans’ quarters

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 249

Figure 13.5 Top: Plan of the “DK neighborhood” at Mohenjo Daro showing the excavated streets and buildings (By John Marshall/ASI, Copyright Harappa.com). Bottom: Photo of carefully constructed structures on a grid-plan at Mohenjo Daro (Comrogues, 2010, CC BY-SA 2.0).

250  Religions in South and East Asia

located there as well. Workshop areas, particularly those associated with pyrotechnics, operated for many decades; it is possible that craft skills were hereditary, passing from parents to children over generations (Kenoyer 2014). Such is the case in today’s India; some make their crafts at home, while others go to cooperatives or central locations. Harappan culture is rather extraordinary because it appears to have functioned so differently from other contemporary civilizations such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, or the Shang Dynasty in China. Harappan political structure continues to be a subject of discussion (e.g., Green 2021; Kenoyer 2014; Shrimali 2017; Vidale 2010). Harappan civilization may have been structured in the form of city-states, each with a major center as the seat of power (Kenoyer 1995) or there may have been a single ruler or council located in a city such as Mohenjo Daro; of course, any number of other political structures may also have been in place (Ross and Steadman 2017). What stands out in Harappan settlements is a relative lack of substantial differentiation among individuals and social groups. Some structures were larger and were termed “palaces” by early excavators but continued work has suggested they may have functioned similarly to temporary housing for city visitors, in effect “hotels” perhaps for traders or visitors from other Harappan settlements (Possehl 2002; McIntosh 2008). There was definitely differentiation across the settlements; the variation in the size and quality of housing was mentioned earlier, though Harappan houses were similarly outfitted with courtyards and other amenities. Some households contained more “expensive” goods such as statuary, seals (see the following), and jewelry made of finer materials (Kenoyer 2014; Wright 2010). The inhabitants possessing more high-end goods may have been the craft makers who produced them, thereby achieving greater status and economic resources within the society. Nonetheless, the level of socioeconomic differentiation between Harappan residents across the cities and towns is relatively minimal when measured against contemporary complex societies such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China (Green 2021). The Harappan Script

Harappan script is logographic, in which a sign likely represented a word; at present, over 400 signs are known, appearing in pictographic or ideographic form (Figure 13.6). Harappans probably wrote more lengthy documents on perishable, organic materials such as paper or skins. The main examples that remain are steatite seals that comprise a mixture of pictographs and iconographic symbols, some of which may have religious connotations. A few other examples of writing include a “sign board” found at the Dholavira city gate, perhaps the city name or a type of “welcome” sign, and miniature tablets that may have been associated with keeping accounts or perhaps messages of worship (McIntosh 2008). The Harappan language may have been part of the Dravidian language family (Parpola 2015).

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 251

Figure 13.6  Example of Harappan pictographic writing (drawing by R. Jennison).

Harappan Religion

Substantial evidence of the Harappan belief system has eluded archaeologists. Nearly every aspect of their material culture that could carry a religious connotation can also be explained as simply utilitarian. Nonetheless, hints do exist and suggest a complex set of beliefs that may have been incorporated into the later religion now known as Hinduism. Architecture and Clues to Beliefs

One of the best-known architectural features in Harappan civilization is the socalled Great Bath on the citadel at Mohenjo Daro. The Great Bath is situated between a building that may have been an audience hall (once called a “granary”) and another structure known as “the College,” along with other structures at either end. The pool itself was surrounded by small cubicles and slightly larger rooms. Some of these appear to be bathing rooms with drainage systems. The pool measures 12 × 7 meters and is over 2 meters deep (Possehl 2005). It was absolutely water-tight, with an underlying layer of bitumen topped by tightly fitted bricks that were carefully plastered. One entered the water at either end, via a set of stairs, to a final low platform for sitting or standing. The effort that went into building this astonishing structure is considerable and suggests it was much more than the local swimming spot and rather dedicated to ritual bathing (Figure 13.7). As one archaeologist says, “This tank was probably used for special public or elite rituals associated with water purification” (Kenoyer 2014: 416; see also Possehl 2005). A smaller version of this type of water feature may have existed in the domestic quarter of Mohenjo Daro (Kenoyer 2014). Thus far, the Great Bath at Mohenjo Daro is unique among Harappan cities, though water management was a major endeavor at most centers (Bisht 2005). Lustral (purification) baths may well have existed at other Harappan settlements but await further excavations.

252  Religions in South and East Asia

Figure 13.7 Top: Photo of the “Great Bath” at Mohenjo Daro (Saqib Hayyum, 2014, CC BY-SA 3.0). Bottom: Artistic rendering of ritual bathing in the Mohenjo Daro “Great Bath” (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 253

One of the remarkable aspects of Harappan cities is the lack of identifiable public temples (Sugandhi and Morrison 2011). No large-scale religious structures other than the Great Bath have been unearthed. It is possible that large, open spaces may have served the function of the city temple as areas where public gatherings could take place. One such area was found just in front of the citadel at Dholavira. Large, open areas might also have been marketplaces, but these were more commonly located near gates at Harappan cities. A single structure in the Mohenjo Daro residential area, known as House HR1, has been described as a possible neighborhood temple or perhaps a priest’s house (Ratnagar 2001). The courtyard of this structure featured two staircases flanking what may have been a tree. However, no altars or other clearly religious paraphernalia were found in this structure, so its role as a religious building remains speculative. Another set of features that are not entirely understood include structures associated with fire sometimes identified as “fire altars” (McIntosh 2008). These plastered, mudbrick structures were intentionally built to support fires; apparently located in publicly accessible places, they were set into the ground and are usually circular or oval in shape. Ashy remains, including burned bones of cows and other animals, indicate material was burned in these installations. A number have been discovered at the site of Kalibangan, and several were identified at other sites, including Lothal and Rakhigarhi (McIntosh 2008). However, there is little evidence—other than, perhaps, the burned animal bones—to suggest these features served ritual purposes; they may have had other uses, perhaps as kilns (Kenoyer 2014; Shrimali 2017). Scholars do note, however, that every house featured a hearth; while this may have functioned solely as a utilitarian cooking and heating installation, ritual activities associated with fire remain a possibility. Seals, Figurines, and Statues

Other materials that offer clues to Harappan religion include seals, figurines, and statues. Plant images represent what is likely the pipal tree (a type of Indian fig tree; Figure  13.8). This tree has heart-shaped leaves and regularly appears on seals, ceramics, and terracotta tablets in association with figures that might be deities. Sometimes, humans water the tree; in other cases, a deity sits within its branches or the tree also includes animal-like heads, perhaps representing a “tree spirit” (Dani and Thapar 1993). Kenoyer (1998) suggests that the pipal tree may have been a type of “temple” for Harappans—open-air sacred locales where people could make offerings to this sacred representative of nature. The common representation of animals on seals and pottery and as terracotta figurines prompts some to suggest an animal cult was practiced in the Harappan civilization—or, at least, that animals figured prominently in Harappan mythology (Kenoyer 1998, 2014; Ratnagar 2001). Common animals shown are tigers, bulls, water buffalo, and the occasional elephant. One bull-like creature, depicted with only a single horn, has come to be known as the Indus Unicorn

254  Religions in South and East Asia

Figure 13.8 P hoto of a pipal tree, with close-up of leaf in inset (photos by S. R. Steadman).

(Figure 13.9). Some have argued that it is the depiction of a bull in which the second horn is essentially hidden behind the first in artistic rendering (Possehl 2002). However, there are reasons to believe that the Harappans actually meant to depict a more mythical one-horned “Indus Unicorn” figure (Kenoyer 2013). Until the Harappan script is deciphered, the true identity of this animal remains

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 255

Figure 13.9 Top: Photo showing terracotta figurines of two-horned bulls in the British Museum (Zunkir 2020, CC BY-SA 4.0). Bottom: Photo of a Harappan seal depicting the seemingly one-horned “unicorn” (copyright J. M. Kenoyer/Harappa.com, Courtesy Dept. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of Pakistan).

unknown, but its ubiquity suggests it may have played an important role in Harappan mythology. Seals also depict human-animal imagery, sometimes in association with plants, as noted earlier. In some scenes, a man fights or masters animals (Kenoyer 2010); he sometimes has a headdress and may be some sort of deity or perhaps

256  Religions in South and East Asia

a special human. Humans also appear on bended knee, marching in procession, and presenting offerings. These actions are regularly in association with another figure that wears an elaborate, horned headdress and multiple bangles, likely representing a deity (Kenoyer 2010, 2014). Such scenes may depict the performance of ritual activities in which humans worship, make offerings, and show reverence to their gods and goddesses. Other seal images show a human with headdress and bangles attached to the body of a tiger or other animals (Aruz 2018). These images may depict mythological creatures—or they could also represent the shamanic journey of religious practitioners. A few seals depict a male sitting on a platform, bearded, and wearing a horned headdress. The figure is three-faced and seated in the yogic position ­(Figure 13.10). This figure has been identified by some as a “Proto-Shiva,” or

Figure 13.10 P hoto of a “Proto-Shiva” seal showing a figure seated in yogic position (copyright J. M. Kenoyer/Harappa.com, Courtesy Dept. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of Pakistan).

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 257

a precursor to the Hindu focus on yogic meditation (Possehl 2002; Ratnagar 2001). The attitude of meditation could be a symbolic representation of attaining a type of Harappan “moksha.” Another seal features a female(?) with elaborate jewelry, headdress, and possibly long hair, sitting in a pipal tree; before her kneels a human figure, also possibly female, in supplication or making an offering (Figure 13.11). In the register below her are seven possibly female figures in a procession. Some archaeologists suggest the deity within the tree may represent versions of pre-Vedic Hindu fertility goddesses who today manifest as Shakti or a goddess known as Durga in the Hindu pantheon (Elgood 2004; Lahiri and Bacus 2004). The images represented on these seals possibly lay a foundation for some of today’s major Hindu deities having origins in ancient Harappan culture.

Figure 13.11 Photo of a seal showing what may be a horned goddess in a pipal tree possibly receiving offerings from a figure on bended knee; seven (female?) figures appear to be in attendance (copyright J. M. Kenoyer/Harappa.com, Courtesy Dept. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of Pakistan).

258  Religions in South and East Asia

Terracotta figurines at Harappan sites portray both humans and animals; thousands of fragments have been recovered from the two main Harappan cities, though female figurines occur almost exclusively at Mohenjo Daro and Harappa (Ratnagar 2016). Female figurines are far more numerous, but male figurines have also been found; these figurines are handmade and vary in quality and construction (Clark 2009, 2018). They are far from uniform in their adornments; some sport bangles on their arms; many have elaborate and varied headdresses, and a kilt or short skirt is also common (Figure  13.12). A  few of the clearly female figurines hold infants. A standard interpretation of the figurines is that they represent a goddess-based religion with a focus on fertility, possibly used as votive offerings or in household-based rituals (Possehl 2002). Find spots of the figurines are not generally associated with areas considered religious in the two cities. Rather, many were recovered as part of street debris, scattered and often broken in houses, or in other inauspicious contexts (Ratnagar 2001, 2016). The same is true of the ubiquitous terracotta and stone or faience figurines of animals, including bulls, rams, squirrels, and rhinos, though many of these have perforations allowing them to be worn as amulets or carried suspended on string. Some argue that these “non-religious” find spots suggest the human and animal figurines were merely toys or dolls. An alternative explanation is that they served as votive offerings—but during a single ritual or ceremony; after the completion of that particular event, the sacred nature the figurine had possessed was dispensed with and it could be discarded. Some archaeologists have suggested that these figurines, rather than representing deities or even a “mother goddess,” may represent Harappan people. The various dress and ornamentation could depict specific individuals who made the figurines for purposes of ritual activity or to attract the attention of a deity for a special purpose, enacting a type of “sympathetic magic” to effect a desired outcome (Clark 2016). Harappan women, perhaps more often than men (hence the greater number of female figurines), may have been responsible for carrying out household rituals related to protection, fecundity, provision for the family, or other important matters (Ratnagar 2016). Though fewer in number, male figurines occur, and many also wear elaborate headdresses which often suggest animal (bovine) horns (Clark 2018). Earlier discussion described images on seals of human figures with horns extending from their heads that likely depict deities. Harappan male figurines may represent the same supernatural identities; alternatively, they may represent religious specialists or shamans, venturing into the shamanic process of transcending beyond the human plane (Clark 2018; Ratnagar 2016). Harappan stone statuary constitutes the last category of items that might yield clues to Harappan religion. The most provocative of these is known as the “Priest King” from Mohenjo Daro (Figure  13.13). The bearded male figure wears a headband with a circular symbol on his forehead, a similar band on his forearm,

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 259

Figure 13.12 Photo of a Harappan female terracotta figurine wearing an elaborate headdress, jewelry, and belted kilt (copyright J. M. Kenoyer/ Harappa.com, Courtesy Dept. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of Pakistan).

260  Religions in South and East Asia

Figure 13.13 The “Priest-King” statue from Mohenjo Daro (drawing by R. Jennison).

and a garment with trefoil and circle designs. The garment’s designs once held red pigment, and holes in the statue’s neck indicate a necklace or headdress was once attached. The eyes contained shell inlay, and their half-closed rendering may represent a meditative state. Early excavators suggested this statue represented a priest, a king, or both; however, there is no evidence to support such claims, and thus, the identity of the figure remains hidden. Meditation in Hinduism, as discussed earlier, is an important pathway to moksha, and the headband features a circle situated in the center of the forehead, which could be suggestive of later Hinduism’s “third eye” of consciousness, representing a transcendent understanding of universal reality. Reflections on Harappan Religion

Though our understanding of Harappan religion is still fragmentary, some trends can, perhaps, be identified. The Great Bath at Mohenjo Daro and household bathrooms in Harappan residences suggest that purification by water was important

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 261

and may have featured in religion and ritual. The frequent appearance of cow/ bull iconography on seals, pottery, and its association with figurines highlights the importance of cattle and, perhaps, their presence in the cosmology. Though less certain, fire may have also played a role in Harappan ritual. The lack of clearly identifiable temples—and ubiquitous figurines—suggests that ritual ­activities were often or mainly carried out in the household rather than led by formal religious specialists. The relative lack of extensive socioeconomic stratification in Harappan settlements seems equally reflected in their religion. Harappans may have worshipped not in temples that limited admittance only to elites but in open areas and in homes. Substantive evidence of an elevated, “priestly” class, or caste, is limited, as is clear demonstration of a palace and ruling elite. Although Harappan society exhibits hierarchical structure in the form of differentiation in houses and possessions, there does not appear to be the extraordinary gap between elites and the rest of society as is found in contemporary civilizations. This apparently more muted differentiation with respect to wealth, power, and prestige appears in the religion that was itself relatively unranked with regard to supernatural beings, access to ritual areas, and opportunities for worship. The notion that a society’s religion is reflective of its social structure would seem to be well demonstrated in the ancient Harappan culture. The Arrival of the Indo-Aryans During the Late Harappan period, waves of Indo-Aryan speakers migrated into South Asia (Parpola 2015), though the first groups may have filtered in during the Mature Harappan period. The precise form and date of arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers continues to elude archaeological and genetic investigations (Danino 2016; Kennedy 1995). That Indo-Aryans arrived carrying their language and religious traditions is evident in both the emergence of Sanskrit (an Indo-Aryan language) in the writing of the Rig Veda by the late second millennium bce and the many elements of what is known as “Vedic religion” in early Hinduism. How long Indo-Aryans and indigenous (Harappan) systems of belief intermingled before the appearance of the Vedas is not yet clear. Our knowledge of original Indo-Aryan culture in South Asia is limited. Practicing nomadic pastoralism as they traveled through Asian landscapes, IndoAryans probably continued to rely on animal husbandry even after settling in South Asia and engaging in cultivation. Stock breeding was a staple economic endeavor, and a reliance on the horse is clear (Renfrew 1987). Indo-Aryans had a ranked societal organization, featuring elites, warriors, and possibly religious personnel, with lower classes that might have included merchants, craftsmen, and, at the bottom rung, laborers (Fairservis 1995; Renfrew 1987). Comparative linguistic analysis suggests the presence of patrilineal kinship, with a possible clan-based tribal structure, with male heads of households (Mallory 1989).

262  Religions in South and East Asia

There is somewhat more robust linguistic evidence for Indo-Aryan religion. With almost no exceptions, Indo-Aryan deities were male. Storm, sky, and mountain gods were of great importance; the Vedas describe major deities such as Indra, Varuna, Agni, and others, many of whom have ancient Iranian and West Asian counterparts. The Vedas also recount the creation of humans in which Brahmins, or priests, spring from the head of “Cosmic Man,” a deified figure. The warriors, the Kshatrias, who were men of strength and action, came from his shoulders, and from the thighs came Veishas, the merchants; finally, the laborers, or Shudras, came from Cosmic Man’s feet. In this myth, those doing the “purest” work, the clerics, came from the head, which is farthest from the ground, while the part of the body most likely to be defiled, the feet, produced those in the most impure professions. Herein, it is thought, is the explanation of the caste structure that has pervaded Indian society for millennia. Other aspects of Indo-Aryan religion and culture are also captured in the ­Vedas. Chants, prayers, and rituals outlined in the Rig Veda were clearly central to worship. Animal sacrifice, not surprising in a pastoralist society, was prominent, including the grand and expensive royal horse sacrifice. Fire was a central component to sacrifice ceremonies, conveying the offering to the gods. What is conspicuously absent is overt instructions for the building of temples or grand edifices for worship. The Indo-Aryans were more accustomed to open-air or non-permanent ritual locales, perhaps to be expected in an originally nomadic culture. From the combination of Indo-Aryan and Harappan religions came the complex and fascinating religion of Hinduism. Harappans, Indo-Aryans, and the Rise of Hinduism There is no doubt that the Hinduism practiced today is substantially different from that practiced 2,000 years ago. New deities and avatars—and more regularized worship in temples—might very well make today’s Hinduism somewhat strange to someone who lived in the past. However, there are elements of Hinduism that appear to be extremely ancient and perhaps even had their roots in the pre-Hindu cultures of India. Earlier discussion noted the importance of water and fire, sacrifice, animals, and worship in the household in modern Hinduism (Eltsov 2013). The significance of water in Harappan culture, in many ways, mirrors the crucial role purification by water plays in modern Hinduism. The importance of fire in Indo-Aryan culture is demonstrated by their god Agni and the sacrifice-by-fire rituals in the Vedas. The fire installations in public areas of Harappan settlements, some of which include burned animal bones, are suggestive of possible similar practices. Animals were important to all these cultures, with the cow taking precedence in Harappan culture and the horse in Indo-Aryan. All animals are sacred in modern Hinduism, with the cow playing a prominent role in Hindu mythology. Perhaps groups of Indo-Aryans arriving into Late Harappan

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 263

communities found elements of religious practice to be somewhat similar to their own. The absence of buildings for public worship (i.e., temples) may have been a further point of intersection. Indo-Aryan nomadic pastoralists would likely set up portable altars as needed. The apparent absence of monumental buildings for worship would seem to suggest Harappans enjoyed a more individualistic ­approach to their deities as well. Household shrines or altars, perhaps visits to the Great Bath or other bathing-related locations, and the occasional public gathering in open areas may have characterized Harappan methods of worship. Harappan figurines may further attest to a tradition of household-based ritual activity. Other aspects of the original Harappan religion seem to have made their way into modern Hinduism. The pipal tree, still sacred today, was certainly a powerful symbol in ancient Harappan cosmology. A slightly higher level of guesswork involves the ancient identity of specific deities. Perhaps one of the most secure identifications is that of Shiva. His possible early appearance as the three-faced god in yogic position on Harappan seals could be a precursor to the very popular god of destruction in Hinduism today. The possible presence of a female deity image on ancient Harappa seals leads to speculation that this could be a precursor to the Shakti/Durga of later Hinduism. A Few Other Considerations: Caste and Consciousness

Many scholars have commented on the great differences between the Vedas and the Upanishads (Leaf 2014): A  clearly polytheistic basis in Vedas and an all-encompassing consciousness of yogic meditation as a form of worship in the Upanishads. That two such different messages would be offered in the same sacred text is unusual and leads to speculation that meditation and the karmic cycle may have derived from Harappan beliefs and polytheism from the IndoAryans. Was the “Priest-King” demonstrating the correct Harappan path to moksha? Is the symbol on his forehead a reminder of the “third eye of consciousness” expressed in the Upanishads? Certainly, with the current state of evidence, we cannot even begin to answer these questions. But asking them is all part of the archaeology of religion. The origins of Indian caste have been a continuous topic of discussion, so it is unlikely a paragraph or two here will satisfactorily deal with the topic. However, what little we do know about Harappan and Indo-Aryan societies lends itself to some speculation. Harappans had an unusual approach to societal organization: Social groups included farmers and herders, craftsmen and merchants, possibly some sort of defenders or warriors, and elites (religious or secular, or both). That ranked classes of these groups are not easily detected is what makes Harappan society so interesting (Coningham and Young 1999; Eltsov 2013; Green 2021). A hierarchical society may well have been in place, but one’s placement at a “lower” level may not have been terribly disadvantageous.

264  Religions in South and East Asia

Let us, for a moment, speculate that the Indian varna system is quite ancient (ancient DNA studies are investigating this very topic); once born into an occupation—that of your parents—it was yours for life and for your children as well. The farmer saw only a few differences between his own home and that of his neighbor, the merchant, and his other neighbor, the city guard. In this way, a well-ordered and smooth-running society could be achieved, with no lack of individuals to carry out important roles. Farmers did not give up farming to become merchants; city guards did not incite coups to take over the rule of the city. The Indo-Aryans may have entered South Asia as a nomadic, pastoralist society with elites, warriors, and “lower classes,” all ranked and privileged according to their position within the society. What if two such systems met and merged— the Harappan one tailor-made for ranking but largely unranked, the Indo-Aryan one heavily ranked but perhaps less rigidly structured? A ranked caste system would ensure that Indo-Aryan elites maintained their positions even upon arrival in a new land. The likely greater number of (Dravidian?) indigenous South Asians engaged in farming, herding, and craft-making would remain in the lower echelons of society and thus be more easily controlled by a smaller number of Indo-Aryan elites. The roots and organization of India’s ancient caste system was surely far more complicated than that described here, but the intersection of the Harappan’s peculiarly undifferentiated society and the Indo-Aryan ranked system may very well have played an important role. Classical Period Hinduism and the Origins of Buddhism In the early first millennium bce, northern India was divided into small chiefdoms controlled by leaders empowered though kinship ties (Embree 1988). Hinduism and a hierarchical caste structure were firmly entrenched in north Indian society. Temples dedicated to major deities such as Shiva and Vishnu were becoming common, and a focus on female deities had lessened. This may have coincided with the relegation of the woman’s prominent role in the household to a secondary one, a status present in modern Indian society. Vedic styles of worship were carefully followed by this time, and sacrifice figured prominently in the Hindu liturgy. A growing importance of temples required the presence of priests at most rituals; they were supported by the people through offerings and payments for services. Those with greater wealth could perform rituals more often and make more notable sacrifices (such as animals), while those in the lower echelons of society could not show their devotion as regularly or with such elaborate offerings. The notion of pollution and purity became an even more powerful distinction in the caste divisions and more firmly separated the wealthy and powerful from those in the lower castes (Weisgrau 2000). Some suggest it was at this time that the “untouchables,” the Dalits, emerged in

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 265

response to a need for people to perform the most polluted and undesirable tasks of a growing society. By the sixth century bce, various kingdoms began to emerge in northern India (Embree 1988); lower caste individuals grew poorer, and powerful elites found themselves in less strategic positions with the emergence of centralized power structures (Robinson and Johnson 1997). These alterations in the basic structure of society in northern India resulted in the development of at least two new religions—Buddhism and Jainism. Both religions offer alternative paths to moksha, avoiding the sacrifice-heavy route practiced in Classical Hinduism and making moksha accessible to all believers, without distinctions according to caste or possession of wealth. In this way, Buddhism and Jainism can be viewed as responses—and even rebellions—to a societal structure and a religion that invited change. The origins of Buddhism well illustrate the gap this religion appeared to fill in first millennium bce India. The Origins of Buddhism

The term Buddha means “awakened one” and refers to the concept of achieving enlightenment or nirvana (a form of moksha). The Buddha, originally a man named Siddhartha Gautama, became awakened through a path other than that proscribed in the Vedas; this path emerged into the religion now known as Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama was born somewhere between the mid-sixth century and the early fifth century bce and died approximately 80 years later (Trainor 2001a). The details of The Buddha’s life are vague because chroniclers wrote about him several hundred years after his death, relying on oral tradition while also glorifying his life on earth. Archaeologists have excavated various sites in the region of the upper Ganges River and Himalayan foothills (see Figure 13.1), where Siddhartha Gautama probably lived and Buddhism began (Allen 2003). His family apparently belonged to the Kshatriyas varna, and his father was an important tribal leader, perhaps even a chief, in the region; however, the area was absorbed into a kingdom, and so Siddhartha Gautama’s family, like many other elites, may have been experiencing the type of social displacement discussed earlier. The Buddha’s birth is recounted in the context of miraculous events and sacred indicators heralding the birth of a great leader (Leaf 2014). Accounts speak of an aged sage who examined the infant and declared the child would become either a great monarch or a religious leader—the latter only if he left the palace to wander the world. To encourage the former, Siddhartha’s father forbade the child to leave the grounds of the compound and built high walls to prevent his son from seeing the outside world. Siddhartha was surrounded by peace and solitude, with healthy people who were happy, with music and dance and all the pleasures of life. It was in this way that his father hoped to groom him to be a great monarch and avoid the life of poverty that he would experience should he dedicate his life

266  Religions in South and East Asia

to religion. As a young man, however, Siddhartha was curious about the world beyond the walls, and one day, he set out to see the world outside of the palace walls (Leaf 2014). Some accounts suggest that his father cleared the road of all indicators of unpleasantry (i.e., disease, infirmity, poverty) so that Siddhartha would continue to be blinded to life’s realities. But supernatural beings known as devas, those who have achieved nirvana, appeared to Siddhartha as diseased old men, and one even posed as a corpse. Another appeared as a wandering ascetic, a man at peace because he had renounced his burdens; Siddhartha realized it was this life of simplicity that called to him as well. At the age of 29 or 30, he left the palace, his wife, and his child and began his life as an ascetic to achieve peace, and eventually, nirvana. For 6 years, Siddhartha lived in the forest with other ascetics, wearing the saffron-colored robe characteristic of these holy men. He lived a life of abject poverty; one day, on the point of starvation and death, Siddhartha accepted food and renounced the life of ascetism (Trainor 2001a). He sat down under a pipal tree and began to meditate. During this period of meditation, he became a bodhisattva, one who is very close to achieving enlightenment. After 3 days, he became The Buddha, the enlightened one, and began his ministry. The Allure of Buddhism

Enlightenment brought several realizations to Buddha that formed the underpinnings of Buddhism. He understood the earth-bound physical body as caught in an endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth; this cycle is perpetuated by ignorance, human cravings, and above all, suffering. Enlightenment frees the body from these things and allows the karmic cycle to be broken and replaced with advancement into nirvana. As Buddha began his teachings, these concepts emerged as the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism (Smith 1994): • • • •

Life is dukkha (imperfectly translated as “suffering”). Duhhka is caused by tanha—i.e., ignorance, cravings, desire. To avoid dukkha, one must overcome tanha. To overcome tanha, one must follow The Eightfold Path.

The Eightfold Path is a set of behaviors that, according to Buddha, allows humans to reach the hoped for release to nirvana. The proper behavioral and ideological codes in the first four paths are (1) knowledge; (2) aspiration; (3) speech; and (4) behavior, this last offering a set of rules which should not be broken. The second four pathways include (5) livelihood, meaning one should join a monastic order for some part of their earthly existence; (6) effort, meaning an active exertion to throw off tanha; (7) mindfulness, the mental attempt to do the same; and (8) absorption, which refers to the meditative process leading the propitiate to nirvana.

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 267

The Buddha quickly attracted followers, including his old companions, the ascetics of the forest; he sent his followers out to proclaim his teachings. Many were attracted to his message of equality among believers; status and expensive sacrifices had no place in this new message (Coningham 2001). Some followers became monks and nuns, others lay practitioners. New Buddhists were drawn from both the elite and commoner levels of society; males, and soon after, females, could become full-fledged “renunciants” or followers of the Buddhist tradition (Coningham 2001; Trainor 2001a). All were attracted to the concept of compassion for all humans regardless of caste, gender, or social designation. The Buddha died when he was 79 or 80 years old, and the monks and nuns spread out to establish monastic communities across northeastern India and Nepal. However, the requirement that one must give up earthly goods and join a monastic community in order to achieve enlightenment (lay practitioners could only hope to attain a higher birth in the karmic cycle) kept the religion from achieving widespread popularity much beyond the north. Thus, Hinduism remained the dominant religion among residents of South Asia, with only a minority practicing Buddhism. This might have remained the norm until today— and Hinduism might have ended up absorbing Buddhism completely—had not a Buddhist ruler come to the throne of the Mauryan Kingdom of northeastern India in 272 bce (Fogelin 2015). The emperor Ashoka was significantly responsible for ensuring not only the survival of Buddhism in India for centuries but for its spread eastward as well. Ashoka did not insist his people convert to Buddhism, and thus, Hindus and Buddhists existed side by side. He undertook three methods to spread the religion of Buddhism through India and beyond, two of which can be documented archaeologically. One major endeavor was Ashoka’s building campaign. When The Buddha died, his remains were cremated and then divided into eight parts and taken across the region to form the foundation of the eight original stupas, the rounded sacred buildings that house Buddhist relics (Coningham 2011) (Figure 13.14). Unlike Hindus, Buddhists did not have “temples” at which they might focus their devotion and engage in meditation and prayer. Ashoka therefore commissioned the building of stupas and pillars across his kingdom to provide a sacred place for Buddhists of each region to visit (Fogelin 2015). Ashoka built these monuments in stone rather than wood, so many still stand today, in spite of later defacements by Hindus and Muslims (Willis 2001). The spread of Buddhism was also aided by the creation of statues of Buddha himself, often in attitudes of meditation. The earliest of these are found in areas controlled by the Mauryan Kingdom (e.g., Taxila in Gandhara). Statues were placed at stupas, monastic cave sites, and other sacred places and may have been inspired by Alexander the Great and the Classical Greek artistic ideals he brought to the region in the fourth century bce (Leaf 2014). They functioned not as idols to be worshipped in and of themselves but as inspiration to follow the Four Noble

268  Religions in South and East Asia

Figure 13.14 T he Dhamek Stupa at Sarnath (the location where The Buddha gave his first sermon after achieving enlightenment). This stupa likely dates to the time of King Ashoka of the Mauryan Empire, ca. 249 bce) (photo by S. R. Steadman).

Truths. To gaze upon the countenance of their religion’s founder while contemplating the path they must follow helped to retain existing Buddhists and draw new adherents to the faith. King Akhoka’s third innovation was not in material culture but in human agency. Textual evidence suggests he was responsible for sending missionaries to regions beyond India, including to Sri Lanka and Myanmar (Burma). These missionaries were aided by the development of bodhisattvas, who became known as beings that had nearly achieved nirvana but had turned back to assist believers in their struggle to become enlightened. The notion that divine beings existed to help overcome the dukkha of human life served to draw even more believers to the Buddhist religion. During the centuries following Ashoka, Buddhism continued to spread toward the east, eventually making its way to Southeast Asia and beyond.

From Harappans to Hinduism and Beyond 269 Buddhism: A Quiet Rebellion

Ironically, though Buddhism advocates nonviolence, the word “rebellion” is an appropriate one to apply to the religion’s origins. It, like contemporary religions such as Jainism, arose in response to a societal situation that many in mid-firstmillennium bce northern India found untenable. The confines of caste society— and the burdens of achieving Hinduism’s moksha in what seemed an increasingly elite-friendly religion—drove many into the arms of a more forgiving and economically manageable belief system. That it later all but disappeared in the land of its birth has less to do with the religion itself and more with societal forces of the time. The legacy of Buddhism lived on, however, in regions to the north and east of the South Asian subcontinent, becoming the major religion practiced in much of Southeast Asia today.

Chapter 14

Religion in Ancient China Elites and Ancestors

Ancient China is a vast place, with diverse regions featuring a multitude of cultures. This chapter focuses on a single area in the middle region of the Huang He (Yellow) River; it is here that the great Shang state emerged in the Bronze Age. Evidence suggests that early Neolithic farming communities exhibited minimal levels of socioeconomic differentiation, although, by the later Neolithic, there is evidence for increasing levels of social complexity and intracommunity hierarchy. By the late second millennium bce Bronze Age, Shang dynastic kings ruled a state system that commanded a significant military apparatus and had power over the daily lives—and deaths—of their people, based in large part on royal and elite control of religious ritual and ceremony. Critical to the Shang royal power was the importance of kinship in ancient Chinese society; the Shang dynastic line came to be commensurate with the health and well-being of all people, not just the lineage descendants. The powerful combination of family and religion were central factors in the emergence of the Shang state, but the roots of this system can be found in the Neolithic period several millennia before. Religion and Culture in Neolithic China Many ancient cultures flourished in the heartland region of China ­(Figure 14.1) along the Huang He River, which rises on the northern Tibetan Plateau and flows eastward to the Yellow Sea. The moderate, monsoonal, slightly arid climate and nutrient-rich soils of this region offered ideal conditions for agriculture and long-distance travel. The Neolithic period in China begins ca. 10,000 bce and extends to ca. 2000 bce. Archaeological evidence from the middle Neolithic Yangshao culture suggests relatively egalitarian communities emphasizing the importance of communal ancestors; by the end of the Neolithic, evidence from the Longshan culture provides glimpses of social stratification, territorial warfare, and a greater focus on ancestor veneration.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-19

Religion in Ancient China 271

Figure 14.1 M ap of sites and regions discussed in the chapter (map by S. R. Steadman).

The Neolithic Yangshao Culture: The Importance of Ancestors

In the Yangshao period (ca. 5000–4000 bce), people grew domesticated rice and millet and had domesticated pigs, chickens, cattle, and dogs; ceramic production was an important craft, as were hemp and leather-production (Underhill 2002; Underhill and Habu 2006; Zhang 2005). Archaeological work at the sites of Banpo and Jiangzhai show residents also made crafts of stone, wood, and bone, produced wheelmade ceramics, and had begun to experiment with metal production. These oval-shaped villages consisted of at least 100 semi-subterranean houses and work areas and may have housed hundreds of people (Barnes 2015); the center of the villages provided open plazas and occasionally contained larger structures perhaps used for ceremonies. Yangshao houses were either circular or rectangular (Figure 14.2). At Jiangzhai, houses were grouped in neighborhood clusters, likely reflecting kin-related residential units (Barnes 2015; Peterson and Shelach 2012). Each neighborhood appears to have engaged in certain production activities such as hunting, farming, or various types of craft production (Lee 2007). Different households engaged in exchange so that each could acquire necessary materials and food for daily life. Most households, however, possessed similar numbers of ritual paraphernalia; burials and associated burial goods at both sites, located outside the settlement, suggest a minimal level of social differentiation between individuals or households (Lee 2007).

272  Religions in South and East Asia

Figure 14.2 Plan of Jiangzhai village (drawing by S. R. Steadman, after Peterson and Shelach 2012: 272, figure 3.).

Community-wide feasting activities, likely to honor ancestors but also to unify community members, took place in village centers; alcoholic beverages were consumed and activities may have included community dancing (Liu 2021). Specific ceramic containers were designated as ritual vessels to be used at feasts associated with burial activities (Lee and Zhu 2002). This tradition of specific vessels associated with burial-related feasting and, perhaps, the interment of a venerated ancestor becomes enshrined in the production of bronze vessels in the later Erlitou state (see later). Examination of those buried in Yangshao cemeteries has confirmed that kinship ties were an essential social identity in this Neolithic culture. Secondary interments, placed within or very near earlier burials, were of blood-related kin members such as siblings, parents, and children (Lee and Zhu 2002). In essence, “family plots” in Yangshao cemeteries ensured that family and ancestors were together in both life and death. In the Neolithic Yangshao phase, kinship ties seem to have played a prominent role in both social identity and economic activity.

Religion in Ancient China 273

Another clue to Neolithic belief systems in China comes from the beautiful ceramics created at this time. Painted decoration on these vessels included geometric designs (Figure 14.3) as well as human faces and plant and animal images, with fish and frogs being very common animal motifs (Zhu 2013). Vessels were usually red, with black paint. If these vessels were used in ritual ceremonies, the colors and images portrayed on the ceramics may have been symbolically important to ritual practitioners, perhaps shamans, performing the rites (Nickel 2011; Zhu 2013). The discussion of the neuropsychological model in Chapters 2 and 5 might hold some value for interpreting the meaning of the geometric symbols on the vessels. The discussion of spirit familiars in Chapter 2 might be relevant to the images of animals portrayed on these vessels. By the Middle and Late Neolithic Yangshao phases (ca. 4000–2800 bce), things had changed. Stratification according to wealth differentiation had taken hold; pigs began to feature in ritual symbolism, and thus, ownership of pigs served as a status marker (Kim 1994). Burials also show substantial differentiation, with some requiring far more labor and containing numerous and more valuable grave goods. In this later phase of the Neolithic Yangshao period, people had begun to fortify their communities by building rammed-earth walls, suggesting that conflict may have become far more common (Lee 2004). The Late Neolithic Longshan Culture: The Power of Elites

In the late Neolithic, the Longshan culture (2600–1900 bce) witnessed population growth, the development of regional polities with elites and leaders, and evidence of much more significant social stratification (Sit and Xue 2010; Shao 2005). As territorial boundaries became more fixed, greater levels of conflict emerged, demonstrated by much more significant defensive architecture and weaponry. Evidence of human sacrifice has been discovered within the walls surrounding Longshan settlements; it is probable that these victims were

Figure 14.3  E xamples of Yangshao pottery (Zhengzhou City Museum, Gary Todd, 2008, CC BY-SA 1.0).

274  Religions in South and East Asia

captured during periods of conflict (Yang 2019). Rituals associated with their sacrifice and entombment in the walls may have symbolically empowered the walls to repel future attacks or imbued them with other supernatural powers. Some walled areas within the walls may have been reserved for rituals associated with ancestor veneration (Liu and Chen 2003; von Falkenhausen 2008). The increasing sociopolitical complexity and social stratification, greater levels of conflict, and deepening ritual activity are all found in the Longshan settlement of Taosi. The large Taosi settlement was rimmed by rammed-earth walls. Elites inhabited large homes in walled compounds; non-elites lived in far smaller semi-subterranean rammed-earth structures. The approximately 10,000 tombs clearly reflect this significant differentiation in wealth (He 2013). Elites were buried in wooden coffins placed in large tombs with hundreds of burial goods ­(Figure 14.4). Lesser tombs were also equipped with wooden coffins and perhaps 20 burial items; the majority of the Taosi population was buried in simple pits, the bodies sometimes wrapped in a reed mat, with no accompanying burial goods (Shao 2005). The presence of an apparent observatory at Taosi may have given elites special religious standing if they controlled access to this important guide to the agricultural cycle (Liu 2009; Reinhart 2015). It may also have symbolically allowed the royal lineage to seemingly communicate with the spiritual world regarding the flow of time and seasonal changes, on behalf of those it ruled (He 2013). The focus on ancestor veneration and community-wide feasting rituals honoring ancestors, common in the Yangshao period, began to disappear in the later Neolithic Longshan phase. Instead, evidence of feasting at individual elite tombs was more common, suggesting that the ancestors of higher status lineages became more important and worthy of ritual activity (Liu 2000). Non-kin community members may have contributed to these feasting rituals as well, though whether they did so freely or because it was expected of them is unclear. In addition, a large structure within the royal complex may have been a temple specifically dedicated to worshipping ancestral spirits of the royal lineage (He 2013). The practice of divination using animal bones (referred to as “oracle bones”) is another ritual practice that emerged at this time. Diviners may have been itinerant practitioners who traveled to Longshan communities to carry out rituals for elites and leaders (Flad 2008). The rituals associated with ancestor veneration and divination are clear indicators of a shift from a more egalitarian social structure to a far more stratified society over the course of the Neolithic period. As living community members gained higher levels of status, wealth, and power, so did their ancestors. This heralds the later development of Shang period religion, in which all Shang peoples had to recognize—and worship—the ancestors of leaders and elites to ensure the health and well-being of all.

Religion in Ancient China 275

Figure 14.4 A ritual ax made of jade was a symbol of power and authority and represents the type of valuable burial goods in Longshan tombs (Xue and Xu 2017) (Shanghai Museum, Gary Todd, 2010, CC SA-BY 1.0).

Bronze Age China: The Earliest Chinese States In the Bronze Age, the earliest state known as Erlitou (ca. 1900–1520 bce) arose in China. This led into the Early Shang period (also known as the Erligang, ca. 1600–1300 bce) followed by the Shang Dynasty (ca. 1300–1050 bce). Although there are many elements that contributed to the rise of the Erlitou state, the most

276  Religions in South and East Asia

prominent factors appear to be a rapid and robust development of a stratified society with a powerful elite class, the emergence of elite control over a significant craft industry, and the consolidation of ritual into elite hands. By approximately 1800 bce, palaces built of rammed earth were built in the center of Erlitou city (Figure 14.5). Burials in the courtyards of these structures featured exceedingly rich graves such as the dragon-shaped shroud made of more than 2,000 pieces of jade and turquoise covering a male burial (Liu and Xu 2007). Also discovered in these courtyard burials was evidence of human sacrifice, perhaps as part of the mortuary rituals (Lee 2004). Between 1800 and 1600 bce, the palatial quarter in the center of Erlitou expanded; several structures were built on top of rammed-earth foundations several meters thick and a rammedearth wall encircled the quarter. The amount of labor required for these constructions was enormous. The foundation for just one building consisted of 20,000 m3 of earth requiring tens of thousands of hours of labor (Liu and Chen 2003). Sacrificial burials were found in the palace foundations; victims were tied with ropes and partially dismembered (Lee 2004). Those living in and/or controlling the construction of the Erlitou “palatial quarter” had the ability to command

Figure 14.5  Layout of an Erlitou palace (Shibo77, 2011, public domain).

Religion in Ancient China 277

labor from city residents to import materials and construct the elaborate foundations and large structures atop them. They were also in a position to demand the ultimate sacrifice of life, either from Erlitou residents or perhaps from prisoners of war, in the name of belief. Craft production became very important to elites during the Erlitou period. High value crafts such ceramics made from kaolin clay (later used for porcelain) and items of jade and turquoise are found both in the palaces and elite tombs (Liu and Chen 2003). Excavations have revealed that workshops dedicated to creating the finest Erlitou items such as turquoise and bronze products were located near the palatial quarter so that activities associated with the production of these goods could be controlled by the elites and royal families (Xu 2013). Of tremendous importance was the development of bronze technology. In the Erlitou state, bronze tools, weapons, and other items such as bells were created using a casting technology employing ceramic molds (Xu 2013). The most important bronze objects were ritual drinking vessels, known as jia (tripods), jue (cups) (Figure 14.6), and he (pitchers), the earliest versions of which imitate the ritual ceramic vessels used in ancestor veneration rituals in earlier times (Xu 2013). In these earliest stages, decorative motifs on these bronze vessels included geometric forms, but in later times, they become much more elaborate.

Figure 14.6 L eft: Drawings of Erlitou Jua vessels. Right: Photo of a Jia tripod from the Erlitou culture (left, drawing by S. R. Steadman, after Thorp 2006: 56, figure 1.17; right, photo from the Cleveland Museum of Art, John L. Severance Fund, public domain).

278  Religions in South and East Asia

These bronze ritual drinking vessels likely played a major role in ancestor veneration rites. These vessels began to appear only in elite tombs at Erlitou, suggesting substantial elite control over workshops and the distribution of valuable goods (Liu and Chen 2003). Erlitou elites may have commandeered the lead in practicing ancestral veneration rituals, perhaps portraying their own ancestors to the Erlitou population as more important for the health and well-being of the entire community (Allen 2007). Since these “more important” ancestors were those of elites, it then fell to those same elites to conduct rituals and therefore take charge of important ceremonies in both private and public events that centered on ancestral veneration. Religion played an important role in the rise of the Erlitou state and the expansion of social stratification. Ancestor veneration rituals, previously practiced in community-wide settings, became limited to rites carried out by elites at their family burial locations. Elite ancestors then became “more important” in the lives of Erlitou commoners, who may have felt it necessary to follow rules set forth by those important ancestors’ descendants. Kinship continued to play a critical role in Chinese society, especially at the elite level, as elite ancestors assumed important roles in the supernatural realm. Control of religious practices, with its inherent kinship association, stands as a critical element in the rise of the Erlitou state and the centralization of power and control into the hands of the few. The Shang Dynasty Early histories of China describe the succession of “Three Dynasties,” beginning with the Xia, leading to the Shang, which was followed by the Zhou. However, archaeology suggests that the earliest stages of the Shang Dynasty emerged directly after the fading of the Erlitou culture which then corresponds to the first “Xia” dynasty (Barnes 2015). The Early and Middle Shang at Yanshi and Zhengzhou

In the late stages of the Erlitou culture, late in the sixteenth century, a new settlement, Yanshi, was established less than 10 kilometers from Erlitou. Like Erlitou, Yanshi boasted palatial buildings, impressive fortifications, and centers of craft production (Figure 14.7). It is at Yanshi that the “Early Shang” phase (or “Erligang” phase, ca. 1600–1300 bce) begins. Yanshi was encircled by several massive rings of rammed-earth walls. Inside the innermost wall were multiple palaces similar to those at Erlitou, with the addition of at least two ponds; human, animal, and plant remains were also discovered, suggesting the practice of sacrificial rituals at the center of the palatial district (Liu and Chen 2012). An outer wall enclosed areas set aside for storage and workshops for bronze and possibly ceramics. The outermost wall was clearly defensive in nature and was surrounded by a moat.

Religion in Ancient China 279

Figure 14.7 Plan of Yanshi City and close-up of palace area (on the right) (drawing by S. R. Steadman, after Liu and Chen 2012: 280, figure 88).

A second contemporary settlement, Zhengzhou, about 85 kilometers east of Yanshi, was a major bronze production center. Some believe it may be the first Shang Dynasty capital, known as Ao, but this is not yet confirmed. The massive city of Zhengzhou was also surrounded by a rammed-earth wall with a girth of close to 30 meters at its base; at its peak, as many as 100,000 people may have resided at Zhengzhou (Liu and Chen 2012; Thorp 2006). The palatial quarter of the city held dozens of structures, some quite massive in size, likely a mix of palaces and temples. Human and animal remains suggest that ritual sacrifice was performed; 100 human skulls with cut marks were found in the palace area (Liu and Chen 2003). Few elite burials have been excavated at Zhengzhou, but evidence suggests they were at least as elaborate as those at Erlitou. Wooden coffins and the sacrifice of animals and humans accompanied elite interments, along with grave side rituals likely dedicated to the veneration of ancestors (Thorp 2006). Around 1300 bce, Zhengzhou and other Early Shang centers were abandoned, possibly due to conflict between regions. The next century saw turmoil along the Huang He River valley. By the end of the century, the Shang Dynasty was firmly established.

280  Religions in South and East Asia

The Late Shang Dynasty The powerful Shang Dynasty (ca. 1300–1045 bce), with its capital at Yinxu (near modern Anyang), is a textbook example of kings and elites who held reins of power over the people they ruled. Oracle bones, first appearing in the Longshan period, were used as record-keepers, offering some of the earliest examples of Chinese writing and supplying significant data about the Shang state and religious practices. The ancient Yinxu capital was enormous, covering as much as 30 km2 (Figure 14.8). Inside the city were palaces and temples, a royal cemetery, workshops and residential areas, and a clear indication that residential clusters were organized according to kin-based lineages (Barnes 2015). The massive royal and ceremonial complex at Yinxu contained at least 50 buildings, surrounded by a wide moat-like ditch that set it apart from the rest of the city (Thorp 2006; Lu and Yan 2005). Some of these structures were devoted to craft production, likely

Figure 14.8 Plan of Yinxu center showing residential and workshop areas, the royal cemetery, and the palatial/ceremonial precinct (drawing by S. R. Steadman, after Lu and Yan 2005: 157, figure 6.19).

Religion in Ancient China 281

controlled by city elites. Other workshops were scattered across the entire city, populated by workers who lived in various areas of the vast city. Shang kings were the leaders of the royal lineage, known as the Zi royal clan, which placed them at the head of the entire Shang society (Lu and Yan 2005). Anyone in the Zi or closely related lineages held high positions in the royal court, with power over political, legal, and religious matters. Those associated with religious affairs, especially in the position of “diviners” (interpreters of the oracle bones), were particularly influential. The most powerful religious figure, however, was the Shang king, who carried out rituals for and communicated with the Shang deities. Oracle bones from the Shang dynastic period provide insight into the supernatural beings that made up their cosmology. At the pinnacle of the Shang pantheon was the god Shang Di, or “high lord” (Barnes 2015). Shang Di reigned over other deities representing the natural world (wind, sky, rain, and elements of the landscape). The Shang king carried out rituals honoring these deities; evidence suggests that, at the time of ascension to the throne, he became one with Shang Di, making the king divine in nature. Kinship was a central organizational principle in the ancient Shang Dynasty and larger society, demonstrated by the layout of the Yinxu capital. Yinxu was organized according to residential areas within which were houses, storage areas for subsistence goods, and burials (Figure 14.8). Late Shang society was heavily stratified, ranging from the powerful elites and royalty through at least five lower levels to the commoners who lived in small and simple semi-subterranean houses containing few items; these were often located near the workshops where they likely labored. This stratification system was hereditary, likely rooted in Neolithic times and cemented in the Bronze Age (Chang 1974, 2005). Shang royal tombs themselves demonstrate the power and control wielded by elites and leaders. Tombs were square or oblong, accessed by long ramps leading to a wooden chamber in which the coffin rested (Figure 14.9). The labor required to build royal and elite tombs was considerable; one study estimates that the building of a large tomb required 7,000 working days (Chang 1986). As was the case in earlier royal complexes, elite burials at Yinxu were accompanied by human and animal sacrifices, and these were also found in the rammed-earth foundations of buildings in the complex, perhaps sacrificial “foundation deposits.” There may have been as many as 10,000 human sacrifices spread among the elite burials in the Yinxu tombs, many of them possibly war captives, but evidence suggests that others accompanying the elite burials were members of the household, selected to accompany the deceased into death (Barnes 2015; Campbell 2009). Valuable burial goods consisted of jade, stone, bronze, and ceramics. The tomb of a royal consort named “Lady Hao” (Fu Hao) held roughly 2,000 such burial gifts (Figure 14.10) and many of the bronze ritual vessels associated with ancestor veneration (Nelson 2003). Also found in her tomb were sacrificed dogs and humans. In the Yinxu cemetery, many pits were filled with sacrificed

282  Religions in South and East Asia

Figure 14.9 Plan of the royal cemetery (known as Xibeigang) at Yinxu (drawing by S. R. Steadman, after Lu and Yan 2005: 157, figure 6.21).

Figure 14.10 Reconstruction of the Fu Hao Tomb (Gary Todd, 2009, CC BY-SA 1.0).

humans; most pits contained three human victims, but some had multiple sacrifices. Many of these were decapitated or dismembered males, possibly war captives, but others were complete females and children (Barnes 2015; Thorp 2006). Chariot and horse burials were also found in some tombs (Figure 14.11)

Religion in Ancient China 283

Figure 14.11 Photo of one of the chariots found in the Yinxu royal cemetery, accompanied by horses sacrificed for the burial (Gary Todd, 2008, CC BY-SA 1.0).

(Thorp 2006). At the graveside of elite burials, feasts were held using the beautiful bronze ritual drinking vessels to aid the deceased on to the ancestral plane. Bronze technology was quite developed by the Shang period; bronze ritual vessels bore elaborate decoration and were organized as to use. Some were designated for cooking, probably for ritual feasting; others were designated as offering vessels; and some vessels were meant for consuming food and drink. Decorations include geometric designs but also portray a variety of wild animals such as tigers, deer, and birds; animals interpreted as dragons are also present. Another motif includes human-animal creatures regularly represented in full frontal mode; these images may represent masks worn by important religious personages or by the king during ritual events (Childs-Johnson 2020). The relationship between human spirituality and the animal world, found on Neolithic ceramic vessels, became far more elaborate on the beautiful bronzes crafted in the Shang state workshops. Shang Religion: Divination, Deities, and Ancestors

Three major aspects of Shang religion can be documented through archaeology: Divination involved the control and use of ritual oracle bones; Shang rulers navigated the Shang supernatural world as deified kings; and royal power was exerted through rituals and beliefs associated with the veneration of elite and royal ancestors. These elements are indicative of how control of Shang ritual offered elites extraordinary power within this ancient state.

284  Religions in South and East Asia

Over 150,000 oracle bones have been recovered from excavations at Yinxu, though this number may be a fraction of those created in the Late Shang period (Keightley 1978). The most common bones used in divination were turtle plastrons (the bony bottom of a turtle shell) and the scapula of oxen (Figure 14.12). Turtle pens were used at Yinxu to ensure proper materials were always available, and turtles were given to the city as tribute from outlying regions controlled by the Shang king (Flad 2008). The ritual cycle was vigorous, and by the Late Shang, nearly constant. A ritual period honoring ancestors or a deity lasted approximately 10 days; once completed, a new ritual period began (Thorp 2006). Oracle bones were prepared for divination by the ritual specialist—the diviner—who smoothed, thinned, and polished the surface. Holes and indentations were drilled and chiseled into the back of the bone, or inner surface of the turtle plastron, after which it was ready for the divination process to begin (Keightley 1988). First the diviner addressed the question or request to the oracle bone; this was followed by a type of pyromancy in which a heated bronze tool was applied to the marks on the back or underside of the bone (Figure 14.12). The application of heat caused the bone to crack, creating “messages” that could then be read by the diviner as the answer to the question or request. In the case of royal divination processes, the answer was read by the king after the diviner

Figure 14.12 L eft: A  turtle plastron with divination inscription dating to the Shang Dynasty (National Museum of China, BabelStone, CC BY-SA 3.0). Right: Oracle bone from an ox showing burn marks creating cracks that are read by the diviner (British Museum, CC BY-SA 1.0, public domain).

Religion in Ancient China 285

carried out the ritual. Those in charge of preparing the oracle bones and carrying out the divination practices for the royal court commanded a significant level of power in the ancient Shang world (Nickel 2011). Divinations carried out on behalf of, or by, royal and elite individuals were frequent and considered critical for the success of Shang society. Dozens of diviners served the king to make requests of the ancestors and deities for aid, protection, and success on behalf of the royal Zi lineage. In some cases, predicting a future event or outcome was the goal, and in other cases, the client wanted to confirm that disaster such as war or illness was not imminent (Keightley 1988). Sometimes divination was carried out to verify previous predictions, such as those by the king, or to confirm that actions he had taken or was about to take were sanctioned by the ancestors or the gods. Given that it was the king himself or a diviner in his employ, who read the oracle bones attesting to the king’s predictions and actions, it is likely that the king was never wrong. A common method of addressing the oracle bones was to ask a two-sided question that elicited an “either/or” answer: “there will be an attack, there will not be an attack,” which might receive an answer of “yes/yes.” This type of question allowed the king to always be right in his interpretations of the oracle bone messages (Keightley 1988). Though the great majority of divination was carried out for the royal court and the elites, commoners also occasionally employed diviners (Flad 2008). Commoners may have been concerned about their harvest (“will my harvest be good?”), illness (“will my son survive?”), or concerns about a coming war. Answers might have been clear—“no” or “yes”—or more enigmatic such as “today there will be no death” (Keightley 1988). The utter belief in the power of the oracle bones and their readers demonstrates the power of religion in ancient Shang society. As “chief interpreter” of some of the most critical questions answered on the oracle bones, the king could render the answers in ways that not only supported his decisions and actions but continued to enhance his power over his kingdom. Even when divinations were read by religious practitioners on behalf of the royal court, they were, in fact, retainers of that court and unlikely to defy the king or the Zi lineage in any demonstrable way. The influential role divination played in ancient Shang culture was firmly lodged in the realm of the most wealthy and powerful members of society. Through this process, messages from the gods and ancestors were routed through the highest elites of the Shang world, allowing them to control the very words of the supernatural realm to the masses. As mentioned earlier, the Shang people believed in a number of deities who prevailed over the natural world, with Shang Di as the high god (Barnes 2015). Second only to Shang Di were the royal ancestors who could intercede with Shang Di for the people, if they (the ancestors) had been properly propitiated through sacrifice (Keightley 2014). Upon ascension to the throne, the king became one with Shang Di, making a triumvirate of power that included the high

286  Religions in South and East Asia

lord Shang Di, the Shang living king, and the Zi lineage ancestors; in essence Shang Di was considered the ancestor to the Shang kings. Further, at his death, the king, as had his ancestors, transcended to the supernatural realm, thereby serving as a critical conduit to the supernatural world for the Shang people. Veneration of the deceased king, now an ancestor, was then the duty of his successor as well as the Shang people in order to ensure his continued support from the supernatural realm. Written sources also suggest that Shang kings were associated with the sun; once deceased, a royal ancestor was not only associated with Shang Di but also, in effect, “joined” the sun in a complex relationship, making reverence to that ancestor critical to ensure proper measures of time and season (Childs-Johnson 2016, 2020). While on the throne, the king embodied Shang Di, as demonstrated by terms such as yi and bin, which meant to “spiritually transform” into or “identify with” the deity (Childs-Johnson 2019). This type of “transformation” was also displayed in images on the bronze ritual vessels used in ceremonies (Childs-Johnson 2016). The incorporation of Shang Di as the ancestor to the king’s Zi dynastic lineage ensured that the living king—and those who came before him—were seen as the chief advocates for the Shang people. This effectively legitimized all royal actions, including the king’s ability to control the labor of his people, carry out military campaigns, and collect vast amounts of goods and subsistence items to drive the ritual cycle. The king wielded further power in his role as a type of religious practitioner. The yi and bin transformation referenced not only the king’s embodiment of Shang Di but his ability to transform into other spiritual beings. Shang art portrayed on bronze vessels and ivory as well as other media depict animal masks that could be worn by a human (likely the king) as well as human-animal images suggesting transformation (Childs-Johnson 2019) (Figure 14.13). In this role, the king could communicate with all of the natural/spiritual world in order to solve problems for his people. Written sources suggest that one important task the king carried out as Shang religious leader was to exorcise demons (gui), which may have included ghosts of ancestors who wished their descendants ill (ChildsJohnson 2016, 2020). In this role, the king demonstrated to those he ruled that he had power over every aspect of the world around them, including earthly creatures and the celestial and spiritual world. The major ceremonies honoring deities and ancestors, including burial of the recently deceased, also illustrate the religious power concentrated in the hands of the elites and the royal court. There were at least two types of ceremonies to honor the ancestors: Those held at temples in the elite/royal center of the city and those held at tombs at the time of burial. As noted earlier, these rituals lasted as many as 10 days; the need to recognize many ancestors meant that there were ritual activities nearly constantly (Keightley 2014; Lu and Yan 2005). The most critical ancestors to honor were those of the royal Zi lineage who could influence Shang Di, the sun, and other supernatural beings. Deceased Zi ancestors, including kings and queens, could help bring about critical events such as bountiful

Religion in Ancient China 287

Figure 14.13 S hang Dynasty bronze vessels (all in the Metropolitan Museum of Art). Top left: A  wine cup possibly used as a ritual drinking vessel (public domain). Top right: Ritual wine cup (Munsey Fund, 1931, public domain). Bottom left: A  finial (ornament) displaying what appears to be a human-animal hybrid (Ernest Erickson Foundation, 1985, public domain). Bottom right: An upright bell decorated with a zoomorphic design, possibly meant to represent a mask (public domain).

288  Religions in South and East Asia

harvests, successful military campaigns, cure illnesses, keep drought and disease at bay, and generally ensure successful daily life as “strong, fertile and fortunate” (Keightley 2014: 89). To guarantee the continued support of the royal and godly ancestors, it was necessary to propitiate them on a regular basis through ritual offerings and divination. Offerings included food and drink and the sacrifice of humans and animals. The more important the ancestor, the greater the need for lavish offerings and sacrifices. The king’s Zi lineage ancestors required the most dedication given their divine role. As the king was the main conduit to these ancestors, obeying his commands was incumbent on the Shang population, giving him immeasurable power over every aspect of Shang life. However, though the power of the Shang rulers was immense, instability across the region brought the long-lasting dynasty to an end in ca. 1050 bce. The End of the Shang Dynasty: The Rise of the Zhou According to archaeological data and written records, a new dynasty arose to the west of the Shang empire in the eleventh century. This new power, known as the Western Zhou Dynasty (ca. 1045–771 bce), was founded by King Wu, who ruled from the city of Haojing (Xi’an today). In 1045 bce, King Wu’s forces attacked and defeated the Shang forces, bringing an end to the Shang lineage and state (Barnes 2015). The Zhou Dynasty, however, found much to emulate in the conquered Shang system (Nickel 2011). Bronze vessels remained critical ritual devices and their construction was heavily controlled by the Zhou royal house and associated elites. Elaborate burials that rivaled the richness of Shang kings and queens were found at the Zhou seat of rule and included (sacrificed) household members to accompany the king or queen into the ancestral realm (Xu 1996). Zhou kings, who also apparently functioned as military leaders, were often buried with military equipment including chariots and horses (Jaffe 2013). The Zhou ruled their state using what might be considered a type of feudal system. Zhou lineage members were sent to oversee districts granted to them. They ruled these according to edicts from the Zhou royal house (Li 2003). Divine rulership in the Western Zhou state continued but in a new form. The Zhou leaders ruled according to what they termed the “Mandate of Heaven.” According to this philosophy, kings were designated by the supernatural world as the legitimate and just rulers because they had been chosen as a “son of heaven” to guide and protect the people. The king was deemed the morally sound ruler of the people (Lun 2017), perhaps making him even more powerful than the Shang kings that came before. In the Shang Dynasty, kings assumed divinity with Shang Di as a matter of course. In the Zhou period, kings were identified as just and moral rulers whose mission was to protect and value the people (Lun 2017). As long as a king stayed in power, Zhou people had to believe that he continued to hold the Mandate of Heaven and was their rightful ruler. This gave him the power to rule the vast feudal kingdom built from the Shang state. Should the king be unseated

Religion in Ancient China 289

through military defeat or other means, it meant that he had lost the Mandate through unjust rule. Indeed, this appears to have happened in 771 bce, when the Western Zhou king was overthrown. A new dynasty, termed the Eastern Zhou, was established. The Mandate of Heaven remained in place as the legitimization of rulership throughout the centuries of imperial rule in China, coming to an end only in the early twentieth century ce. The Eastern Zhou period (771–221 bce) is one of instability. Though the Mandate of Heaven continued to be the guiding force that designated rulers, the Eastern Zhou king ruled in collaboration with other elites spread across the land. This led to uneven levels of leadership and competition for the control of territories among elites. By 476 bce, the Eastern Zhou fell into relative chaos, entering a phase known as the “Warring States” period, which ended in 221 bce, when the Zhou Dynasty was brought down by the ruler of the Qin state (Lu and Yan 2005). It is the Qin king, Shi Huangti, who created the first empire and gained archaeological fame for his vast tomb containing thousands of terracotta soldiers (Figure 14.14). Conclusion China is a vast region full of a multitude of cultures with individual histories lasting millennia. Attempting to present all of the diverse cultural histories and religions, from prehistoric times to the recent past, requires a book rather than just a chapter. Just a single area, the middle Huang He River, was the subject of this chapter. Nonetheless, it is an important region as China’s earliest states rose here, and the religion and societal structures that developed in the region created a rich cultural heritage that lasts into the present day. Beginning in the Neolithic, the evidence for ancestor veneration suggests this element of ancient Chinese religion has deep roots. In the Yangshao Neolithic period, evidence of ritual feasting and the extensive labor dedicated to creating suitable burial sites for the dead speak to the importance of ancestors at this early stage of Chinese culture. By the late Neolithic Longshan culture, the importance of ancestors, especially those of elite lineages, grew in importance. By the time of the rise of the Shang Dynasty, the power of elite and royals, in part, stemmed from their ability to present themselves as descendants of largely divine ancestors in the eyes of those they ruled. Though a very different culture than that of the Bronze Age Shang period, ancestor veneration remains strong in modern China (Hu 2016; Hu and Tian 2018), demonstrating the deep roots of this element of Chinese ritual behavior. Another aspect of Chinese religious beliefs, extending into the early twentieth century, involved the divine power of the ruling class. Initially, the rulers themselves were considered divine, in essence one with the premier deity in the Shang period. This altered somewhat in the following Zhou Dynasty with the “Mandate of Heaven,” which legitimated the ruler as just and moral and possessing

290  Religions in South and East Asia

Figure 14.14 View of a few of the terracotta soldiers and horses buried in the Qin emperor’s tomb (soldiers photo: Nee, 2004, CC BY-SA 3.0; horses photo: Gary Todd, 2011, CC BY-SA 1.0).

Religion in Ancient China 291

the divine right to rule. When a king lost his position of power, it was believed that this divine right had been negated due to his defaulting on the requirements of the Mandate. The principles underlying the Mandate of Heaven remained in place throughout the dynastic period of China into the late nineteenth century, ending in the early twentieth century. Archaeology will continue to reveal the intricacies of ancient China and further define the complex belief systems that are the precursors of modern Chinese society today. Finally, the importance of animals in early Chinese cosmology, as represented on ceramic and bronze vessels, can perhaps be found reimagined in the animals associated with the present-day Chinese New Year and zodiac. Among these are the tiger and dragon, images of which are found on ancient bronzes. Today, these animals define the characteristics of someone born in the year of that animal. Thousands of years ago, these animals may have been the trusted companions of spiritual leaders, even the king, as the humans journeyed to consult with the ancestors on behalf of the people they ruled. There is much more to say about post-Zhou China, including the influential religio-philosophies of Taoism and Confucianism, and later, the arrival of Buddhism, which so influences China over the next two millennia. These and many more belief systems, some rooted in the ancient religions discussed in this chapter, create the complex society of today’s East Asia.

Part VI

Africa and the Middle East

Chapter 15

Religion and Empire in Egypt

Ancient Egypt is a favorite topic for those interested in early civilizations and ancient religions. We know an extraordinary amount about the Egyptians due to a long history of archaeological exploration and the many texts and illustrations detailing Egyptian life. Ancient Egypt Northeastern Africa is dominated by desert landscape, cut by the Nile River, which flows over 6,000 kilometers from its origin to empty into the Mediterranean Sea. The only arable land is along the Nile floodplain, a 10–20 kilometers wide ribbon of land that stretches from the Nile Delta in Lower Egypt (the north) to Upper Egypt (in southern Egypt) and into Nubia (in northern Sudan). Rich Nile mud was deposited in spring floods, making this extremely fertile soil for cultivation. Egyptian chronology is still debated, but most agree on dates of the five ancient periods: Predynastic, Protodynastic, Early Dynastic, Old Kingdom, and Middle Kingdom. A  fifth period, known as the New Kingdom, takes history down nearly to the end of the second millennium bce. These periods, except for Predynastic Egypt, feature sequentially numbered dynasties numbering from “0” to 20 (see Table 15.1). Interspersed are “Intermediate Periods,” during which time Egypt experienced difficulties including invasions, dynastic collapse, or other ill fortunes. Predynastic Egypt

In the sixth millennium bce, inhabitants hunted and gathered along the Nile; by 5000 bce, small communities of food producers had emerged, growing wheat and barley and keeping domesticated animals. Over the next millennium, settlements multiplied and expanded, establishing the period commonly called “Predynastic” Egypt. Predynastic sites located in the Nile floodplain have been either washed away or lie under meters of alluvial deposit. The majority of information DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-21

296  Africa and the Middle East Table 15.1  Periods, dynasties, and pharaohs mentioned in chapter with associated approximate dates PERIOD

DYNASTIES DATES

PHARAOHS MENTIONED IN CHAPTER

Predynastic Early Dynastic

“0” 1–2

Old Kingdom

3–6

First Intermediate Period Middle Kingdom Second Intermediate Period New Kingdom

7–11

ca. 5000-3100 bce ca. 3000-2650 bce Narmer (Menes?)/Menes/ Aha (?); Djet ca. 2650-2200 bce Sneferu; Khufu; Khafre; Menkaure ca. 2200-2025 bce

11–13 14–17

ca. 2025-1630 bce ca. 1630-1540 bce

18–20

ca. 1539-1075 bce Ramesses III

about this period comes from cemeteries which were typically located away from the farming belt in slightly higher locales. Excavations at the site of Ma’adi near Cairo in “Lower Egypt” have revealed early fourth millennium bce rectangular and semi-subterranean houses; material culture suggests residents here may have engaged in trade with the Levantine cultures (Bard 2015). This is also the case at the site of Buto (Figure 15.1), where the strong craft industry and long-distance trade appears to have been managed by a growing number of ruling elites, suggesting that the region just south of the Delta was experiencing some political consolidation by the early fourth millennium. This is clearly demonstrated by the diversity of excavated burials in which the lower strata of the population was interred in simple graves with few offerings; the large elite graves (including of children) sometimes contained several chambers and many burial goods of gold, silver, shell, and other materials (Koehler 2010). Predynastic Upper Egypt seems to have been divided into a series of petty chiefdoms or small kingdoms, each with a ruler anxious to expand his territories. The city of Hierakonpolis (ca. 4000–2650 bce) was one of the first urban centers in ancient Egypt; it featured neighborhoods inhabited by craftsmen and merchants, farmers, and administrators (Shaw 2003). A temple structure stood in the town’s center, with an oval courtyard laid out in front of it; the temple consisted of three rooms fronted by four massive wooden pillars. A pole in the center of the oval courtyard may have held a statue of the falcon god, later known as Horus, to which the city was dedicated. Hierokonpolis demonstrates that, even in this early period, temple-based religion was an important part of Egyptian society. A tomb of what is almost certainly a ruler features several paintings: A procession of boats, people, and animals; a human brandishing a weapon subduing kneeling figures; and a human holding two animals that are probably lions. These types of

Religion and Empire in Egypt 297

Figure 15.1 Map of ancient Egyptian sites and regions (map by T. Edwards).

scenes appear later in Pharaonic Egypt to identify a divine king who has military and supernatural power over all that he rules (Koehler 2010). Also discovered at Hierakonpolis was the “Narmer Palette.” This slate palette shows a king, identified as “Narmer” on both sides, engaged in battle with various foes (Figure 15.2). In each, he triumphs and dons the crown of the region; on one side, Upper Egypt is represented by a white cone-shaped headpiece, and on the other, Lower Egypt’s crown is red with a protruding frontal symbol. In Pharaonic Egypt, the pharaoh wore these two as a “double crown” symbolizing

298  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 15.2 P hoto of the “Narmer Palette” found at Hierokonpolis (Egyptian Museum, Cairo, public domain).

his rule over Upper and Lower Egypt. Accompanying Narmer on the palette is a falcon with a papyrus plant in its talons—a symbol of Egypt and its people. The entire scene suggests that a king of Hierakonpolis, aided by his patron god Horus the falcon, succeeded in uniting Upper and Lower Egypt into one kingdom. Narmer may have actually been a ruler known as Menes—the king ancient Egyptians considered responsible for the unification of Egypt, or he may have been King Aha, the founder of the First Dynasty (Wilkinson 2010). He is the last king in what is sometimes called “Dynasty 0.” Early Dynastic Egypt

The eight kings of the First Dynasty in Egypt (founded either by Menes, Narmer, or Aha) ruled a united Egypt beginning around 3000 bce. Menes or one of his successors (Aha?) moved the capital to Memphis in order to seat power at a point where the two regions of Upper and Lower Egypt intersected. However, due to the shifting Nile channel and alluvial and aeolian deposits, this first Egyptian capital city still rests under meters of overburden. Some information about the First Dynasty comes from Abydos, where First Dynasty kings were buried. As Abydos was considered very sacred in ancient Egypt, particularly since it was

Religion and Empire in Egypt 299

dedicated to Osiris, god of the underworld, Dynasty 1–2 kings selected this location as their burial site. The underground tombs of Dynasty 1 kings consisted of a large room that held the deceased ruler and multitudes of material goods that would be needed in the next life. Flanking the main tomb were subsidiary tombs, much smaller in size, in which the king’s retainers and administrators—and possibly family members—were buried, possibly sacrificed by poisoning at his death (Galvin 2005). Pet animals and even replicas of palace rooms also accompanied First Dynasty monarchs into death (Wilkinson 2010). Earth was mounded over the subterranean complex so that little was visible on the surface. Near the tombs was the remarkable discovery of 14 wooden boats, ranging from 60–75 feet in length. These were viable boats that could have sailed the Nile but were instead buried with Dynasty 1 pharaohs. Whether the boats were meant to ferry the kings in their afterlife or were there for symbolic reasons is yet to be discovered. By the time of Dynasty 2 kings, retainer sacrifices were far less common and the focus moved to the king’s role in the cosmology of ancient Egyptian beliefs (Wilkinson 2010). The growing power of the state began to eclipse local rituals and beliefs practiced by the commoners, many of whom may have been tasked with building the royal tombs. Archaeological evidence such as figurines, rock art, and burials suggests that, prior to Early Dynastic Egypt, local cults may have been devoted to fertility and successful childbirth and that women may have had a prominent role in ritual activities (Graves-Brown 2010; Relke 2011). As the divine power of the king became paramount for all Egyptians, these local cults were absorbed into the king’s mythology (Wilkinson 2010). Abydos burials demonstrate that, even in Early Dynastic Egypt, rulers could command not only extensive labor from their people but their actual lives. The effort to move enough earth to build and bury tombs and boats and stock them with fabulous goods literally fit for a king was remarkable and presages later Egyptian practices. The Pyramids and Pyramid Builders in the Old Kingdom

It is the Fourth Dynasty pyramids dotting the Egyptian landscape that have made this ancient society one of the most famous in all of world history. The pyramidal structure evolved over many dynasties of pharaohs, only to disappear, sacrificed to underground tombs in the New Kingdom. Scholars still argue over many aspects of these enormous structures, including how they were built, by whom, and what they really meant to the ancient Egyptians. The Earliest Pyramids

The famous pyramids at Giza were not the earliest ones built by pharaohs. The first above-ground pyramid was built at Saqqara around 2650 bce by

300  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 15.3 Photo of Djoser’s “Step Pyramid” built of stone in a series of mastabas above ground (Vyacheslav Argenberg/www.vascoplanet.com/, 2007, CC BY-SA 4.0; cropped and greyscale from original color image).

King Djoser, a Third Dynasty ruler. Djoser’s “Step Pyramid” was built in steps representing a series of “mastabas” (Figure  15.3). Mastabas were the large, underground, flat-topped tombs built by earlier rulers. Though the tomb was actually underground, Djoser built a stone mastaba above ground and then created successively smaller ones, one atop the other; this resulted in an enormous structure rising 60 meters above the Egyptian sands. Djoser’s pyramid survives because it was built of stone rather than mudbrick, a modification conceived of by the famous Egyptian architect Imhotep, who built many structures during Djoser’s reign (Gates 2011). Djoser’s tomb was at the bottom of a 28-meter shaft; it consisted of many rooms filled with thousands of valuable burial goods. Surrounding the pyramid were the elements of a tomb complex that became the norm, including a temple for continued rites dedicated to the king. Sneferu, founder of the Fourth Dynasty, built several pyramids, beginning with a stepped pyramid at Maidum, then facing the steps to create straight sides soaring to a point. Later in his reign, Sneferu constructed two additional pyramids, the first one is known as the Bent Pyramid (Figure 15.4) and second is the North Pyramid (Bard 2015). The Bent Pyramid was a failed attempt to construct a “true” (straight-sided) pyramid, but it is quite impressive, standing at a height of 105 meters. The North Pyramid would likely have been in the desired “true” form, but it was not finished, perhaps due to Sneferu’s death. Sneferu’s pyramids led to the building of the Giza “True Pyramids,” the first built by his son, King Khufu ca. 2585–2560 bce.

Religion and Empire in Egypt 301

Figure 15.4 Photo of Sneferu’s Bent Pyramid ( Jorge Láscar, 2012, CC BY-SA 2.0).

Khufu’s pyramid, the largest in all of Egypt, is commonly called the “Great Pyramid.” It stands 147 meters high and consists of over three million limestone blocks, each weighing approximately 2.5 tons; it is surrounded by the king’s temple complex and other tombs. The king’s burial chamber was inside the pyramid rather than underground, reached by a series of narrow corridors. Alongside the pyramid are numerous mastabas built for Khufu’s officials and family members as well as temples and causeways connecting the pyramid complex to the Nile valley, where other temples stood a kilometer away. Satellite pyramids in the Khufu complex housed Egyptians queens, including Khufu’s mother; air shafts may have been meant for the king’s spirit to travel on its journey to the afterworld (Bard 2015). Near the pyramid were two boat pits containing cedar boats over 40 meters in length. Two more Fourth Dynasty kings succeeding Khufu, Khafre (ca. 2555–2532 bce) and Menkaure (ca. 2532–2520 bce), also built pyramids at Giza (Figure 15.5). Menkaure’s pyramid (ca. 2532–2510) is the smallest of the three pyramids and had to be completed by his son as Menkaure died during construction, perhaps explaining its smaller size. Burial chambers, located within the pyramids, contained the sarcophagus of the king with his embalmed mummy inside and the multitudes of objects necessary for daily use in his next life. Walls of tomb chambers were carved and painted with colorful scenes of Egyptian daily life, religious events, and scenes of the entombed person’s life, sometimes accompanied by inscriptions. Some also contained biographies and descriptions of events; one tomb inscription described the payment given to the workers who built it. The enigmatic sphinx has elicited much discussion (Figure  15.6), but its purpose remains obscure. The colossal statue was built by King Khafre, carved

302  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 15.5  P hoto of the “Great Pyramids” at Giza. Left: Khufu’s pyramid. Center: Khufu’s son Khafre’s pyramid. Right: Menkaure’s pyramid ( Jorge Láscar, 2012, CC BY-SA 2.0).

Figure 15.6 Nineteenth-century painting by David Roberts (1796–1864) of the Sphinx at Giza still partially under the sands of Egypt (Berger Collection: id#154 [Denver, Colorado]; public domain).

from a natural limestone outcropping, with elements added to create detail; King Khafre’s features can be seen on the sphinx’s human face, which rests on a lion’s body (Bard 2015). Lions were guardian symbols in ancient Egypt, and thus, the Sphinx may have been meant simply to stand as guardian to the pyramid complex. However, it most likely played a role in the Egyptian dedication to the sun god Ra and the cult dedicated to him, discussed in more detail later.

Religion and Empire in Egypt 303

In the Middle Kingdom, kings still built pyramid complexes, but they were substantially smaller. Though the outer facing was made of limestone, the interior of these pyramids was mudbrick, requiring less cost and somewhat less labor. Pyramid interiors contained a maze of rooms and passages, all decorated with funerary texts. Unfortunately, mudbrick interiors have not supported the stone outer casing over the ages, and many have collapsed into inarticulate mounds of dirt. By the New Kingdom period, Egypt had suffered invasion and episodes of imperial collapse. Advertising the location of one’s royal tomb had lost its appeal, and instead, kings were buried in secret tombs dug deep beneath the valley floor. This practice led to the famous region known as the “Valley of the Kings,” where countless royal tombs lie underground or cut into the living rock. Many were looted in antiquity, but a startling number remain intact. It was here that Howard Carter and Lord Carnavron discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun in the 1920s. The Meaning of the Pyramids

Pyramids represented several important symbols in Egyptian cosmology. Their mountain-like shape resembles the first earthly mound that arose from the watery chaos called Nun. From here, the creator/sun god Ra-Atum created the universe that was Egypt (Kuraskiewicz 2022). By associating the pyramid with the creation of earth, the pharaoh, by burying himself within the pyramid, linked himself with Ra-Atum (later Ra). The main purpose of the pyramids may have been to associate the burial place of the kings with the Egyptian creation cosmology and the solar cult. Northeast of Giza, on the eastern side of the Nile, rested the holy city of Heliopolis (just outside of Cairo), later seat of the sun god cult of Ra. This city dates to Predynastic times but became quite prominent in the Second Dynasty period (Magli 2013). By the Fourth Dynasty, Heliopolis was home to the most important temples dedicated to the all-important Egyptian sun god; many obelisks were erected here but only one of these remains today. In later dynasties, the sun god Ra is portrayed with a falcon head, as is the god Horus, who is linked to kingship. All of these combine with the other important function of the pyramid: As a vehicle to the sun. In ancient Egypt, pharaohs were considered gods on earth, descended directly from Ra, a concept that seems to have been established by the Third Dynasty kings (Magli 2013). At death, therefore, the king was simply returning to his celestial family. The pharaoh was to travel with Ra across the sky in a boat; at night, he traversed the underworld, the realm of the extremely important god, Osiris, and was then reborn with the sunrise each day. These travels gave the pharaoh critical power over the rising sun and the change in the seasons, which dictated Nile flooding and the agricultural cycle (Magli 2013). To facilitate the pharaoh’s journey and pay allegiance to Ra, the three pyramids were built on a diagonal precisely aligned to Heliopolis, even though the latter was some

304  Africa and the Middle East

distance away (Nell and Ruggles 2014). In addition, at the summer solstice, the rising sun ascends between the Khufu and Khafre pyramids, as viewed from the temple associated with the Sphinx. In addition to the pyramids themselves, the mortuary complexes held many other buildings, including temples, additional tombs, and the burials of boats as mentioned earlier. The boats may have symbolized the carriages that would convey early kings to the celestial realm; the temples were where the preparation of the king’s body was carried out, and for rituals to honor him after his burial. Excavations have also revealed areas known as “pyramid cities,” where the builders of the pyramids—and the artisans who decorated them—lived while carrying out their work. Associated workshops produced equipment as well as food and beer necessary to supply workers. After the pyramid complex was completed, the pyramid city was occupied by those who maintained the area and the cult of the pharaoh after his entombment. The Pyramid Builders

The laborers who created the pyramids are of as much interest as the buildings themselves. Pharaohs and administrators must have employed a vast workforce to build these complexes. What motivated the workers to build these massive buildings and associated structures? Was the population coerced through threat of religious retribution for failure to serve the king and state? Was building the pharaoh’s tomb a type of “tax” levied on the population, similar to the system employed by the Incas, or was the Egyptian workforce employed at fair pay rates for their daily labor? The building of such monuments was surely costly. Evidence for who built the Egyptian monuments comes to us from texts, paintings, and archaeological excavation of what appear to be workers’ tombs and a workers’ village (Lehner 2006). These datasets offer the picture of a wellorganized and hierarchical labor force, with ranks of laborers, skilled craftworkers, supervisors, and overseers, all living in defined neighborhoods (Lehner 2019). Those at the top of this hierarchy probably included representatives of the pharaoh and the architect(s) responsible for the project. Egyptians who labored on these projects were paid in rations of consumable commodities such as food, drink, fish, cakes, and sometimes, household goods. The most common provisions given were rations of bread and beer, in amounts gradated according to rank in the labor system. Beer amounts were awarded in “jugs,” so, for instance, an overseer might receive 16 loaves of bread and eight jugs of beer for his daily labor; surveyors, six loaves and three jugs; and carpenters, masons, and artisans, one jug and two loaves per day (Smith 2004). Overseers and surveyors were probably full-time employees of the state, while those performing the actual labor may have been only seasonal employees or were called in as needed. Records of payment to workers, their daily efforts, and the materials they moved and used were kept by scribes who could then make recommendations about delinquent

Religion and Empire in Egypt 305

workers or additional or fewer materials needed. These precise records made construction projects ultra-efficient and were as important to the building of the pyramids as the “overseer’s lash or the engineer’s ingenuity” (Kemp 2006: 180). How did the pharaoh acquire the enormous workforce (tens of thousands of people) to build his pyramids, temples, and other structures? The somewhat meager “payment” in beer and bread—and the extraordinarily difficult work that was carried out—suggests to many that the workers were slaves who had no choice but to work for the state for whatever was given them. Others suggest a conscription or “draft” process brought in workers for periods of time. This would, perhaps, correspond to the tax Inca kings levied on their people. Once service was rendered, conscripts could return to their homes and families. Another theory suggests that the majority of labor was carried out in the agricultural off-season, when fields were flooded by the Nile. Since farmers could not farm, they sought out work for the state that would sustain them until the planting cycle began again (Kemp 2006). In actuality, the labor force may have consisted of workers from all these categories. That some were concerned about their own labor being usurped by the state becomes clear in several texts. By Middle Kingdom times, those who could afford the placing of spells on their coffins dictated that, in the afterlife, the individual would not be coerced into labor, but a statue (known as the “shabti”) accompanying him in his tomb would be sent in his place; another text reports that a woman who “ran away” from service to the state had been recovered and would be punished and that her family, apparently imprisoned in her absence, could be released (Kemp 2006). Such texts imply some level of coercion in the state’s organization of the substantial labor force. For 2,000  years, pharaohs who ruled Egypt managed to extract enormous labor resources from their people. That Egyptians, pharaoh and commoner alike, were deeply religious people is not at all in doubt. Evidence from every corner of Egyptian life suggests that the ancient people of Egypt believed completely in the power of their gods and that their pharaoh had a special place among them, during life and certainly after death. The power of the religion and the pharaoh’s role in it made possible the building of these monumental structures, meant to glorify Egypt’s gods and her leaders. The Temples of Egypt

Temples dotted the Egyptian landscape, forming sites of pilgrimage and festival (Teeter 2011). Some temples honored local deities and patron gods; others were dedicated to major gods such as Osiris and were the site of annual—or more frequent—festivals featuring singers, dancers, feasting, and offerings (Szpakowska 2010). Temples to Ra, the sun god, abounded. The only Egyptians who entered the temples were priests working there and a few chosen elites. Buildings today appear monochrome but they once were brightly painted highlighting the carvings and scenes depicting Egyptian mythology.

306  Africa and the Middle East

Besides places to worship, temples functioned as distribution centers for the supplies dedicated to them. Texts suggest that vast amounts of bread, beer, cakes, fine goods, and animals were brought to the temple each year. Some of these were redistributed to temple employees, and some, dedicated to the god. Many donations came from lands owned by the temple, but a significant portion also came from the common farming population. Wealthy people also dedicated statues or stele (of themselves) to the temple to effect constant worship of the deity, even though the person was not in attendance (Szpakowska 2010). Statues of the god to which the temple was dedicated resided within the temple, and at least three food offerings a day, at typical mealtimes, were given by the temple’s priestly contingent who also saw to the god’s other needs (bathing, clothing, etc.) (Teeter 2011). Evidence also shows that non-elites, who could not make pilgrimage or travel to distant festivals, were also quite pious. Egyptians furnished their homes with items that often bore the images or symbols of protective deities (Szpakowska 2010). Platforms within the homes may have served as altars, as did niches in the walls in which figurines or stelae, bearing the images of deities, or perhaps ancestors, may have stood (Szpakowska 2010). The Old and Middle Kingdom temples near the pyramids created an entire mortuary complex. As mentioned earlier, these temples were places where the cult of the deified pharaoh could be maintained. Priests and temple administrators lived in or near the temples and kept the cult alive for decades, even centuries, after the death of the pharaoh. Many of those dedicated to the cult of the pharaoh constructed their own modest tombs in the complex as well. During the New Kingdom, when pharaohs no longer constructed pyramids but were entombed in the surrounding valleys, mortuary temples took on even greater importance, since these were the only visible evidence of the dead pharaoh’s greatness. One of the best known of these is the temple dedicated to Ramesses III at Medinet Habu (1100–1070 bce) (Figure 15.7). Ramesses III built an enormous temple accompanied by a ceremonial palace as well as storerooms, temples dedicated to other gods, and buildings to house administrators. It is essentially a city dedicated to a deceased pharaoh, built by his people and maintained long after his death. Gods and Goddesses of Egypt

There are far too many deities in the ancient Egyptian pantheon to deal with even a fraction of them in any detail. Ancient Egyptians worshipped hundreds of gods and goddesses, but only a few of these were at the pinnacle of the pantheon. We know the names and appearance of the main Egyptian deities due to the ubiquitous tomb paintings, stone reliefs, and rarer papyrus texts that have survived the ages. While most of the Egyptian deities sought to aid their human charges, there

Religion and Empire in Egypt 307

Figure 15.7 Top: Photo of the exterior of the Temple of Rameses III at Medinet Habu (Steve F-E-Cameron, 2010, CC BY-SA 3.0). Bottom: Model of the interior of the Temple of Rameses III at Medinet Habu on exhibit at the Milwaukee Public Museum (Wisconsin) (Michael Barera, 2022, CC BY-SA 4.0).

were a few supernatural beings that can safely be called “demons,” in that their goal was to create havoc, and it was the job of Egyptians, through propitiation of the beneficial deities, to keep the demons from succeeding. Chief among the Egyptian deities were the sun god Ra, Horus, the falconheaded god who protected the pharaoh, and Osiris, the god of the dead and the netherworld (Figure  15.8). Osiris and Anubis, the jackal-headed god of

308  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 15.8 Drawings of Egyptian gods discussed in the chapter (Eternal Space, 2022, CC BY-SA 4.0).

necropolises and embalming, were important actors in the Egyptian death cult. An important female deity was Isis, considered the consort of Osiris; she personified the throne and is the goddess of the reign. Ma’at was the daughter of Ra, the sun god, and she oversaw justice, equilibrium, and balance. She also played

Religion and Empire in Egypt 309

a very important role in the death cult and in the human passage to the afterlife. It is Ma’at’s purview of balance and equilibrium that had to be maintained during the pharaoh’s reign. Hathor was quite an ancient deity, perhaps dating to Predynastic times as part of the ancient fertility cult. She was the consort of Horus, overseeing sky and desert and protecting the sun during its journey through the underworld at night. Personified by a cow, she also protected children and for Egyptians was seen as a benefactor and promoter of fertility. A troublesome deity, Seth, identified with wild animals, causes nothing but trouble for these other deities. Demonic deities included the snake-like Apep, who constantly sought to prevent the sun from rising, and Ammut, the “devourer,” who dwelt in the passage between this life and the next. Ammut represented divine retribution for the wrongs an Egyptian committed during his or her life and was certainly feared by living Egyptians; he was portrayed as a composite of various creatures, including a dog, crocodile, lion, and hippopotamus. An important myth in Egyptian cosmology concerned the life of Osiris. He was one of the original gods of Egypt and became the deity overseeing the entire earth; he married his sister Isis, and together, they ruled Egypt. Their brother, Seth, was jealous of Osiris’ power and undertook to betray him. Seth imprisoned Osiris in a coffin and threw him in the Nile where Osiris died and went to the underworld. Isis recovered the body of Osiris, but Seth again intervened and cut it up into pieces which he scattered across Egypt. Isis gathered up the scattered parts and took them to Anubis who, in effect, brought Osiris back to life; Osiris became the god of the underworld, but the throne of kingship was therefore empty. Isis had conceived and borne Osiris’s son, Horus, who had to battle Seth for the right to the throne. No matter how badly Horus was injured, Isis’s power protected him and he was healed. At one point, Seth struck Horus’ eye out, but Thoth, the ibis-headed god of wisdom, restored it. Horus eventually defeated Seth and became the god of kingship and the pharaohs. Embedded in this myth are the explanations of the roles of these important gods; Osiris ruled the underworld, while his son carried on his father’s role as god of kingship. Anubis became the overseer of death, and Isis, the defender and protector of Egypt and her king. In addition to gods, ancestors could also be called upon for help. Because the dead went on to an afterlife associated with the Egyptian gods, dead ancestors were believed to have supernatural power. They could appeal to the gods to help living family members, to rectify a problem, or even effect revenge on someone who had caused harmed. Ancestors were contacted via small shines in the household; a “letter” that detailed what was needed accompanied offerings providing the necessary information to the ancestor (Szpakowska 2010). Pharaohs were responsible for the secular rule of the state and functioned as liaison between the people and the gods. Pharaoh kept the cosmos in harmony with the earth, which would descend into chaos without his constant work. Divine during his rule of Egypt, in his afterlife, the pharaoh would have the ear

310  Africa and the Middle East

of the gods as he argued for his former people. It was, therefore, essential that the pharaoh be pleased with his people throughout his rule and that he be prepared perfectly for his afterlife so that he could be their advocate forever more. Belief in the divine nature of the king explains the pyramids and temples; Egyptians could continue showing their dedication to deceased pharaohs even though they were ruled by a newly enthroned king. The Egyptian Death Ritual and Funerary Texts

Each culture has a unique attitude toward human death; some fear it and seek to prolong earthly life for as long as possible; others see death as only a “rite of passage” to another stage of life. The Egyptians might be said to have been obsessed with the concept of death. The activities surrounding death, eventually producing mummified remains entombed in pyramids and sarcophagi, is evidence enough of a culture deeply consumed with the life beyond that spent on earth. The Egyptians were quite concerned with proper preparation of the deceased for entrance into the afterlife. They wrote detailed instructions on the funeral process, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead describes the difficult path to the Hall of Justice and how to achieve success while there to move on to eventual afterlife. Embalming the Dead

The proper preservation of the body was an essential component to a successful afterlife. Several embalming scenes painted on tombs and coffins offer clues to how the procedure worked. Egyptians believed that, during the process the embalmer became one with Anubis, ensuring that each stage was done correctly (Figure 15.9). The embalming process took centuries to perfect and was passed orally from one embalmer to the next; our information about the process comes from the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, not the Egyptians themselves. At first, Egyptians were simply buried in the desert sands to achieve desiccation; but, by the beginning of the Old Kingdom, a combination of naturally occurring chemicals (a salt compound called “natron”) was used to achieve a mummy that would remain more-or-less preserved to the present day. The embalming process took approximately 70 days if done correctly (only wealthy Egyptians could afford the entire process). First was purification of the body, which included removal of that which would corrupt it—mainly internal organs (Taylor 2010). The brain was removed either through the nasal cavity or a hole in the skull; it was then discarded as unimportant. The vital organs, the intestines, and the stomach were removed and placed in separate vessels (“canopic jars”) and would accompany the deceased into the tomb; several goddesses were charged with protecting these organs and often the jar’s lid portrayed the

Religion and Empire in Egypt 311

Figure 15.9  A rtistic rendering of the embalming process. The embalmer, dressed as Anubis, hands an internal organ to an assistant for placement in a canopic jar (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

iconography of a protector goddess (Figure 15.10). The heart was left in the body because it was considered the organ responsible for emotion, intelligence, and reason. The cavities left in the body were packed with natron and then the body itself was covered with natron in order to achieve desiccation. The next step was “rebuilding” the body properly for its next life (Taylor 2010): After 40 days, the body was washed and anointed with unguents (accompanied by appropriate prayers), the cavity was packed with linens soaked in resin, and the face, desiccated by the chemicals, was plumped up with plaster or sawdust to look more natural. In later times, mummies had a mask placed over the face to represent the proper face. The body was wrapped in linens, within which amulets were placed to aid the deceased in the afterlife. One of these amulets, a “heart” scarab, was placed over the heart, which played a vital role in the coming ordeal in the Hall of Justice. The corpse was then placed in a coffin. Following the 70-day process, the coffin was transported to the burial site. Depending on the wealth of the deceased, this was an event of great importance. The coffin was placed in a boat, carried by mourners, so that it seemingly “glided” along waters to the burial place. In the tomb chamber, the coffin was laid in a

312  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 15.10 Photo of Middle Kingdom limestone canopic jars (from the tomb of Lady Nephthys, Dynasty 12, ca. 1981–1802 bce) found in 1910– 1911 at the Khashaba excavations at Meir, Middle Egypt (Rogers Fund, 1911, public domain).

stone sarcophagus (if one had been commissioned by the deceased). The canopic jars were also placed in the tomb which was already heavily stocked with items needed in the next life. Rituals and prayers were performed, and finally, the tomb was closed to leave the deceased to travel on to the afterlife. High-status Egyptians continued to be provisioned even after the closing of the tomb. After the funeral, offerings of food and other necessary items for the afterlife, made by family and priests, took place at the temple or cult building associated with the tomb. Actual food, or the saying prayers about food, supplied the deceased with sufficient provisions (Teeter 2011). A statue of the deceased resided in the temple, possessing an element of the ka (life force) of the deceased. It was to this statue that offerings were made. Sacred Texts to Counsel the Dead

The ultimate goal of every Egyptian, king and commoner alike, was to successfully enter the “Field of Reeds,” ruled by Osiris (Bard 2015). This netherworld was thought to be an earth-like place where the next life could be carried out in peace and happiness. It was there that kings would join in the cyclical movement of the sun, symbolically becoming one with Ra. To accomplish these goals, the Egyptians took sacred texts into the tomb with them. These served as “howto” manuals for navigating passage to the next life. We see some of the earliest

Religion and Empire in Egypt 313

versions of what later become texts written on papyrus and linen, inscribed on the walls of royal tombs. These “Pyramid Texts” give information on what should be included in the tomb (food, drink, provisions) but also offer advice for safe travel to Osiris’ netherworld. By Middle Kingdom times, individuals had spells and instructions inscribed on the interior of their wooden coffins for easy viewing. These Coffin Texts were explicit in their instructions to the deceased. One common text was known as The Book of the Two Ways, which mapped out the route to the Hall of Justice, the last stop before entering the afterlife. This route was plagued with demons that had to be successfully bypassed. Texts vital to the pharaohs included The Book of Gates and Amduat, both of which described the sun god’s nightly journey through the underworld. In these books, Ra traversed the 12 divisions (corresponding to the 12 hours of nighttime) in his solar boat. He had to defeat enemies to continue on so that the sun would rise the next day. The texts informed the king about the sun god’s journey and the difficulties the deity would face; the king should help aid Ra along this journey, and instructions for doing so were contained in these books. In this way the king would help his own case for entering the “Field of Reeds.” The best-known Egyptian funerary text is the New Kingdom period The Book of the Dead (in Egyptian, “The Book of Going-forth by Day”), which is a compilation of nearly 200 spells. Many of these were also contained in the Coffin Texts; they help the deceased avoid demons such as Apep the snake (who also plagues the sun god in his nightly journey). The Book of the Dead was written on papyrus or linen and was most commonly found in non-elite graves and tombs. People took as much of this document into the tomb as they

Figure 15.11  T he judgment scene in the Hall of Judgement. The deceased (a person named Hunefer, far left) is led by jackal-headed Anubis into the Hall; the deceased’s heart is weighed against Ma’at’s feather with Ibis-headed Thoth recording the judgment and Ammut poised to consume a failing heart; falcon-headed Horus then presents the successful Hunefer to Osiris (seated); Isis standing behind him (British Museum, public domain).

314  Africa and the Middle East

could afford. Poor people could only take a few spells along for the journey. If a choice had to be made, nearly everyone took Spell 125, which detailed the proper behavior in the Hall of Justice. After navigating the passages and gates to the Hall, avoiding demons and pitfalls, the deceased had one last task before entering the Field of Reeds: Judgment by the gods (Figure 15.11). The deceased would only be able to enter the Hall if the embalming process has been done correctly. Led into the Hall by Anubis, the deceased faced Osiris and a panel of 42 judges, representing the lands of Egypt. The goddess of justice, Ma’at, was also an important part of the process. The deceased’s heart was placed on a scale for which the counter-balance was the feather from Ma’at’s headdress. Each of the 42 judges then asked the deceased one question about his or her behavior when alive. The Book of the Dead instructs that the correct answer is always “no,” meaning that injustice or bad behavior was never to be admitted by the deceased; it was permitted to try and deceive the judges here in order to pass through the Hall. The questions and answers were recorded by Thoth who stood by the scale. If the deceased passed this test and the heart remained balanced with the feather, the deceased was declared “true” and “justified” by Osiris and was awarded a place in the afterlife with the Egyptian gods. If the heart weighed heavy, however, and the deceased failed the test, the heart was consumed by the demon Ammut, who waited below the scale. The deceased died a “second death” from which recovery was impossible; they entered the Egyptian version of hell, where they were tortured and forced to eat blood and excrement. This was certainly a fate all ancient Egyptians wished to avoid. Conclusion The ancient Egyptians offer perhaps one of the clearest illustrations of the role religion can play in empowering the ruling elite. The deification of the pharaoh surely allowed him to command labor and tribute (both symbolic and material) from his people not only during his life but after his death as well. That people toiled for an all-powerful, deified leader is not in question; whether they did so happily or grudgingly is less certain. As work continues at sites along the Nile, these and other questions may well be answered. What is certain is that the power of Egypt’s royal elites was inextricably tied to the complex religion of this ancient civilization.

Chapter 16

Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia

Southwest Asia, more commonly called the “Middle East” (and in archaeological circles termed the “Near East”), stretches from Iran to the Mediterranean, and from the southern shores of the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf (Figure 16.1). It is the birthplace of many religions, including three that are practiced by more than half of the world’s population today: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The cultures and beliefs of ancient Mesopotamia played an important role in the shaping of early Israelite religion, later known as Judaism, which emerged in the Levant several millennia later. The religions of the earliest Near Eastern states are explored here. Ancient Mesopotamia Ancient Southwest Asia has been a focus of archaeological work since the inception of the field. In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, there is still much to learn about the earliest roots of civilization in the “land between the rivers,” or Mesopotamia. One of the most remarkable aspects of this earliest civilization is that it arose in a region with quite limited resources. Southern Mesopotamia is a vast alluvial plain. In the “Ubaid” period 7,000 years ago, when some of the earliest settlements were established, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers offered ample fresh water in a very fertile land. Irrigation agriculture allowed people to build settlements and farm successfully; their houses were built of mudbrick, their agricultural tools made from clay, and their baskets and pots sealed by bitumen, a tar-like substance found in the region. Most other goods in their houses, however, came to them through trade. Ubaid villages had buildings that probably served as temples; as the population grew, it may have been temple personnel who facilitated trade and managed land and surplus grain resources, providing clerics importance in the community and some level of economic control (Ross and Steadman 2015). In the Uruk period, beginning in the early fourth millennium (and lasting until approximately 3100 bce), the Sumerian civilization emerged. Between 3500 and 3100 bce, cities in southern Mesopotamia, especially Uruk itself, attained size and economic prominence in this short period. DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-22

316  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 16.1 Map of sites and regions discussed in the chapter (map by T. Edwards and S. R. Steadman).

Though there were other cities in southern Mesopotamia at this time, it would appear that Uruk was the unofficial “capital” of this fourth millennium civilization. There is no certain evidence that Uruk or other cities were ruled by kings; rulership may have been seated in the temple system rather than in any secular position. By 3100 bce, trade contacts were beginning to crumble, and sociopolitical and economic powers outside southern Mesopotamia were emerging. Following the Uruk period is a century-long phase when the Uruk system reorganized into a different political structure. Beginning in roughly 3000 bce, a new phase, known as the “Early Dynastic” period, began and lasted until the Akkadian empire was established in 2334 bce. It is during the Early Dynastic period that writing achieved its full-fledged form and the greatest architectural monuments were built in Sumerian cities. These southern Mesopotamian cultures

Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia 317

were designated “Sumerian” by archaeologists due to the language and later texts that described the region as “the land of Sumer,” though we do not know how residents referred to themselves. In the Early Dynastic period, Mesopotamia was divided into city-states, in which one main city ruled the region surrounding it, each vying for power with occasional eruptions of warfare between different polities. Some city-states grew to great prominence only to eventually fade in the face of even more powerful foes. These city-states were ruled by kings who commanded armies and wielded secular power but who were also deeply intertwined with Sumerian religious affairs. The temples were administered by priests and priestesses, many appointed by the king. Rulers were responsible for overseeing important religious ceremonies on a regular basis. Therefore, although kingship had been established by the Early Dynastic period, “separation between church and state” was certainly not in effect. In approximately 2334 bce, the various city-states of the Early Dynastic period were united into the first Near Eastern empire. The Akkadian empire was founded by King Sargon, who ruled from the city of Akkad, which gave its name to this state. Within two centuries, by 2154 bce, the Akkadian empire had collapsed. However, kings of this empire were the first to declare themselves divine, establishing divine kingship for centuries to come. The Sumerian Civilization in the Uruk and Early Dynastic Periods By the mid-fourth millennium bce, the major urban center of Uruk covered an area of over 100 hectares and supported a population of perhaps 40,000 people. Excavations at Uruk and at other Sumerian cities have demonstrated complex social and economic hierarchies and the presence of a class structure that included wealthy and powerful elites (Matthews 2003). The ecological setting of southern Mesopotamia allowed its cities, especially those in the far south, to flourish. Besides fertile land and access to fresh water for irrigation, the southern marshes provided ample fish and fowl. The rich land produced a variety of foods, including cereals and fruits (such as dates), and smaller gardens may have provided other plant food items. Domesticated animals (sheep and goats) provided milk products as well as wool and hair for clothing and textiles. Economy and Politics in Ancient Sumer

While the vast majority of the Sumerian population was involved in agriculture, many also dedicated their time to craft production. Crafts ranged from utilitarian and probably mass-produced textiles, metal goods (such as tools), and ceramics to those more accurately labeled “luxury” or non-utilitarian, such as cylinder seals, which came into use by the late fourth millennium. Cylinder seals are small objects of bone, stone, or other materials that were carved so that, when rolled

318  Africa and the Middle East

across a soft surface, they left an impression (Figure 16.2); carved images were unique to an individual or to an office, acting as a type of signature (Otto 2018). Usually about 3 centimeters tall and 1–2 centimeters wide, a hole through their center allowed them to dangle from a pin or be carried on a string. Seals were an important administrative tool, useful for marking the ownership of goods by rolling them across the wet clay used to seal a container. Other objects needed in the growing city included art and decoration for religious buildings, statuary for use in temples (discussed later), and luxury items such as jewelry fashioned of precious and semiprecious stones and metals. With the expansion of craft production and a growing population came the need for managers to control the movement of goods, resulting in an administrative class. The economy seems to have revolved around temple centers in Sumerian cities (Matthews 2003), a system that may have had roots in the preceding Ubaid period. In the Uruk period, goods were dedicated to deities and their temples, which consisted of huge buildings within which these goods could be stored until their redistribution. The administrative class kept track of what goods came into the temple, who had contributed them (and who still owed), and later, how goods should be reallocated to the city’s residents. As this system became larger and more complex, with increasing volumes of agricultural and trade products, administrators required a more sophisticated accounting system, the development of which eventually led to the origins of writing. In the largest settlements such as Uruk, at least a portion of the goods dedicated to the temple were redistributed to the administrators and other city residents associated with the daily running of the temple. This may have been a fairly significant number of people, given the size of these structures and the important role they played in Sumerian religion and economy. Farmers were probably required to contribute to the temple but depended far less on any redistributive

Figure 16.2 Left: Cylinder seal from southern Mesopotamia (ca. 3500–3100 bce), made of limestone, with the roll out displaying a ritual scene in front of a temple (Metropolitan Museum of Art, public domain). Right: Cylinder seal made of jasper, dating to the fourth millennium bce in southern Mesopotamia; note hole drilled through center of seal so that it can be hung on a pin or string (Louvre, Marie-Lan Nguyen, 2010, CC BY-SA 3.0).

Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia 319

goods coming back to them. It is less clear whether craft workers depended on the redistribution of goods from the temple, but at least some were employed as temple workers. The Sumerian population, then, consisted of a socioeconomic hierarchy of classes, with elites at the pinnacle and farmers and herders at the bottom (with a possible slave group below this). Intermediary classes of religious personnel, administrators, crafts-persons, and other workers associated with the temple made up the rest of the population. Though farmers and herders may have rested at the bottom of the hierarchy, they were least dependent on the redistributive temple economy, while those at higher ranks received a portion, or even a majority, of their daily needs from this system. However, as the city grew and the elite class expanded, the amount of tribute required for dedication to the temple also increased, placing added burdens on farmers, artisans, and administrators alike (Ross and Steadman 2015). The political structure of Sumerian settlements is not entirely understood. The temple clearly functioned as an important economic center. Monumental secular buildings are rare in these cities, and no “palace” structure has been found. This does not suggest, however, that there was no centralized leadership. A document known as the “Standard List of Professions” offers an account of titles of officials and their duties as well as lists of workers and their jobs (such as “gardener,” “herder,” and “farmer”). At the top of the list is the highest administrator in the land. In later versions of this text, this individual carried the title “king,” but in these earlier stages, the title is not clearly understood; some have suggested the Sumerian leaders were “priest kings” who drew their power through close association with the temple. While archaeologists and other scholars are still debating the exact nature of the ancient Sumerian ruling structure, it is clear that rulership was intimately associated with the temple. By the Early Dynastic period (3000–2334 bce), the Sumerian landscape— and the population on it—had altered substantially. People had moved from the countryside to cities, perhaps because of growing tribute demands from cities and temples. In Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, there was significant social stratification, demonstrated by burials, the size and wealth content of houses, and textual evidence (Ross and Steadman 2015). Possession of material goods had become quite important, and some households must have been fabulously wealthy, particularly those associated with royalty. Leadership in Early Dynastic cities is clearly defined in the texts. By this period, kingship was established, and palaces, separate from temples, were built in Mesopotamian cities. Kings and their families were still deeply involved in religious duties, but temples were headed by priests and priestesses; kings controlled the armies and performed other secular duties associated with running the state. Information about the lives and exploits of some Early Dynastic kings come from texts written about their endeavors. In early phases of the Early Dynastic period, each city had two important leaders: the king (“Lugal” in Sumerian), who resided in his palace with the royal family, and the main priest (“En” in Sumerian) of the temple dedicated to the city’s patron deity. By the later phases in the

320  Africa and the Middle East

Early Dynastic period, the king had become the major power within his citystate, with the priest’s role in politics and economy still extremely important but secondary to the king. Early Dynastic kings claimed that their power was given to them by the god of the city and that the seat of kingship had descended from the realm of the deities. The king essentially claimed rule by divine right and held power over city, military, and temple. A king could launch building or military campaigns—or undertake economic or political reorganization—by claiming he acted on behalf of the gods, who sanctioned his kingship (Pollock 1999). As kings became the primary Sumerian rulers, it was more difficult for temple officials—or anyone else—to curb their behavior. Over the course of a thousand years, then, the Mesopotamian power structure had changed from one seated in the religio-temple realm to dual leadership between king and temple to supreme power wielded by a divinely sanctioned king. The wealth and power held by elites is perhaps best demonstrated by the burials known as the “Royal Tombs of Ur.” A  cemetery outside this city held several thousand Early Dynastic period graves. Seventeen of these were remarkable in that they had beautiful tomb architecture and fabulous burial gifts, some of which have become hallmark symbols of ancient Mesopotamia (Figure 16.3). The excavator of the cemetery, Leonard Woolley, believed these to be the tombs of a royal family, but there is no firm evidence of this; it is certain that those buried here were wealthy elites of the city of Ur. Besides grave goods such as jewelry, weapons, games, statues, musical instruments, and vessels made of the finest materials (gold, ivory, lapis lazuli, and electrum, to name just a few), those

Figure 16.3 Left: Example of a headdress from the Royal Tombs of Ur (buried with an attendant in a tomb known as the “King’s Grave,” so named by the excavator), the beads are made jade of carnelian and lapis lazuli and the leaves are made of gold (Met, Dodge Fund, 1933, public domain). Right: The “Goat in the Thicket” found in one of the Royal Tombs of Ur, made of gold leaf, copper, lapis lazuli, shell, and limestone (British Museum, Szilas, 2010, CC BY-SA 4.0).

Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia 321

buried in the tombs took their servants with them as well. In one area, 74 victims of sacrifice were discovered—killed, presumably, to serve their masters in the next life. The tombs at Ur may be a unique occurrence in Early Dynastic Sumer, but they are indicative of the power of the elites in this period. Sumerian Cosmology and Deities

Our knowledge about how ancient Mesopotamians viewed their cosmology and their place within the universe derives mostly from textual evidence. A document dating to several hundred years after the Sumerian period is a creation epic known as the Enuma Elish, which features the Babylonian god Marduk; some elements of this epic were likely derived from an original Sumerian creation myth. In the Enuma Elish, the watery chaos separates into sweet (fresh) water, associated with a god known as Apsu, and salty water, represented by a goddess Tiamat. These two deities come together in the brackish waters of southern Mesopotamia and give birth to many deities in the Mesopotamian pantheon (Rochberg 2020). However, all does not go well, and first Apsu, then Tiamat, attempt to kill their many children. Marduk leads the children to victory, and they then proceed to create humanity. Sumerians believed in a multi-layered cosmos, created from cosmic waters, including a “heaven” and an “earth” (Rochberg 2020). Within heaven were various layers, occupied by the Sumerian deities and the constellations. Astrology was extremely important to ancient Mesopotamians; texts from later periods show that astrological divination was used by the royal court to guide decisionmaking, and it is likely that the importance of the stars dates to the earliest cultures of the region (Monroe 2019). Earth was also multi-layered, consisting of an upper level where humans dwelled, while various deities were to be found in the middle and lower levels, or the “netherworld” (Rochberg 2020). Like the ancient Egyptians (see Chapter 15), the Mesopotamians were polytheistic; though the number of deities in their pantheon is unknown, well over 2,000 divinities may have been worshipped (Brisch 2020). In many cases, groups of deities were related to one another, as siblings or children; deities were usually responsible for specific functions, and as noted earlier, the major deities were patrons of the Sumerian and later Akkadian cities. Deities mentioned in various sections of this chapter are described here. Anu was the god of the sky and heaven; in some texts, he is described as the king, or father, of many of the other Mesopotamian gods, one of the most important of which is the goddess Inanna (later Ishtar). Anu was one of the patron deities of the city of Uruk; the “White Temple” in the Eanna district of the city may have been dedicated to him. Anu’s daughter, Inanna, was also a patron deity of Uruk (Figure  16.4). This important goddess was associated with love and war. She was also an important deity of Akkad during the Akkadian empire and is closely associated with the Sumerian king Gilgamesh and the Akkadian king Sargon. Another child of Anu was the god Enki (also known as Ea). Enki was

322  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 16.4 Scenes from the Adda Seal depict major Sumerian gods, all of whom wear six-horned hats: On the left is Ishtar who is has weapons rising from her wings; below her to her left is Shamash with rays of sun rising from his shoulders; he uses a weapon to travel through the mountains to rise in the morning; on the right is Ea (Enki) with water flowing from his shoulders.

the god of water and also of wisdom in Sumerian times and was the patron god of the city of Eridu, considered an ancient and sacred city by the Sumerians. Nanna (also known as Sin) is the god of the moon. He was the patron god of the important city of Ur, and in the Akkadian period the first divine king invoked his name as part of his divine kingship. Mesopotamian deities were more concerned with their own endeavors and did not often concern themselves with the plight of humans (Konstantopoulos 2019). Humans sought their attention through prayer and devotion, as well as by offerings to the temples. Demons also inhabited the supernatural world. These were generally thought to inhabit the “beyond” outside of the cities, in landscape features such as mountains, which may have harbored entryways to the netherworld (Konstantopoulos 2019). They could cause illness and other problems; one had to seek a specialist who could rid the demon’s effects, but only if the gods, through propitiation, also interceded. Writing and Religion: Early Texts

The dynamic and complex Sumerian economy required a sophisticated recordkeeping system that was the spur to the earliest writing system in the world.

Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia 323

Sumerians may have originally used small tokens of clay, in different sizes and shapes, to keep track of the movement of goods in and out of city temple storage areas (Figure 16.5). This developed into the use of clay tablets with markings on them, alleviating the need for numerous small pieces of clay. Eventually, even this system was insufficient, and Sumerians developed the earliest-known writing system to keep track of their economic endeavors. This earliest system was pictographic and emerged in the late fourth millennium. Sumerians impressed a counting symbol to indicate an amount and then drew pictures of the item they wished to record. Eventually, greater efficiency and flexibility were needed, which led to the creation of cuneiform writing, a system using signs impressed

Figure 16.5 Top: Examples of clay token “counters” in the top row of photo, and evolution of writing on tablets in the bottom row (Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago, Daderot, 2014, CC BY-SA 1.0). Bottom left: Example of an early Sumerian clay tablet, showing pictographic symbols concerning grain (Metropolitan Museum of Art, public domain). Bottom right: Example of an Early Dynastic period tablet concerning silver for the governor, written using cuneiform signs (British Museum, Gavin Collins, 2010, public domain).

324  Africa and the Middle East

on clay by a stylus. Sumerian was no longer ideographic (representative of an idea), but rather, used “cuneiform” signs to create words and sentences. By the mid-third millennium, a full-fledged cuneiform Sumerian writing system, with grammatical structure and hundreds of signs, was used to record quasi-historical documents along with the standard economic texts (Figure 16.5). Other tablets recorded far more than just economic information; myths, temple hymns and rituals, and various royal inscriptions also became part of the corpus of texts. It was not long before literary texts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh were composed. Literacy was not commonplace in ancient Sumer, and in fact, it is unlikely that elites themselves could read the texts that recorded their wealth and stories. A class of scribes, perhaps trained from childhood, learned the elaborate writing system and the language that went with it. Sumerian may have differed considerably from the daily spoken language; possibly, it was a separate written language, perhaps with deeply ancient roots, used for the formal record-keeping—and later, literature. Scribes would have held a certain status in Sumerian society for their esoteric knowledge (Ross 2009). However, ultimate power was held by those who could command what the scribes should record, and this right almost certainly belonged to Sumerian elites, including religious and secular leaders. Sumerian texts have given us a great deal of information about Mesopotamian culture and religion. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the earliest piece of literature yet discovered; it eventually (in later centuries) comprised 12 chapters, which contained references to a great flood. Gilgamesh was probably an actual fi gure who may have ruled Uruk sometime in the earlier third millennium. Gilgamesh was, according to the story, a great king of Uruk who built the city walls and the temple precinct. He was a bit too fond of Uruk’s young women, and he worked its young men hard building the city’s wall. The gods were entreated to curb Gilgamesh’s behavior, and they sent Enkidu, a man-beast, to fight Gilgamesh (Figure 16.6). These two heroes wrestled but then became the best of friends and headed out to accomplish great deeds together. After several adventures, Enkidu died, causing Gilgamesh great anguish. In addition to mourning his friend, Gilgamesh feared his own mortality and wished to avoid death. He went to see Utnapishtim to learn the secret of long life. Ut-napishtim and his wife had survived a great flood, becoming immortal in the aftermath. Ut-napishtim recounts the flood story to Gilgamesh in Chapter 11; it bears a striking resemblance to the story in the book of Genesis in the Bible, composed later, in which Noah and his family survive a flood on an ark (McCall 1990). In the Gilgamesh story, the gods decided to create a great flood to eradicate humans. Ea (god of fresh waters) warned his favorite human, Ut-napishtim, of the coming disaster and told him to build a boat, complete with measurements and what should be brought on board (precious metals, animals, and Ut-napishtim’s family). After a week of flooding, Ut-napishtim sent out a dove and then a swallow to search for land, but they both returned. Lastly, he sent a raven, which did not return, signaling land had emerged from the floodwaters. The gods made Ut-napishtim and his wife

Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia 325

Figure 16.6 Left: Terracotta wall panel depicting Enkidu from the Epic of Gilgamesh (in the Iraq Museum; Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP, 2019, CC BY-SA 4.0). Right: Relief from the throne room of a king of Dur Sharrukin (dating to the first millennium bce) depicting a “hero” that is likely Gilgamesh holding a weapon and a lion (Louvre Museum, Jastro, 2006, public domain).

immortal, but Gilgamesh failed to achieve immortality. The Epic of Gilgamesh was copied numerous times, and fragments of tablets with the myth are found all over Mesopotamia and beyond, indicating it was a widely known story. The style of writing suggests it might have been read publicly (McCall 1990), perhaps at festivals or other ceremonies. Other myths describe the actions of the gods and simultaneously explain the Sumerian world. The Descent of Ishtar recounts how the goddess went to visit the underworld. She became trapped or imprisoned there and had to be rescued by Ea. The underworld demons, however, demanded a replacement for her, and so Ishtar sent her lover, Dumuzi, in her place. Dumuzi could only ascend to earth for 6 months of the year, which corresponded to the Mesopotamian growing season.

326  Africa and the Middle East

The Sumerians believed everything was orchestrated by the gods, including good fortune and disaster, and their myths explain the how and why of these events. In addition to religious texts, other documents recount historical information. One of the most important of these is the Sumerian King List (SKL). This document lists the names of early Mesopotamian cities, their rulers, the length of their reigns, and offers a short description of their accomplishments. The SKL was copied and recopied through the ages in city after city, so we have several versions, often with conflicting information. The SKL begins with the statement that kingship descended from heaven, thereby acknowledging the semidivine nature of rulers. It divides kings into “antediluvian” (pre-flood) and those who ruled after the flood. Kings who ruled before the flood lived fantastically long lives, sometimes in the thousands of years. Those listed immediately after the flood, and thereby closer in time to the actual composition of the list, were probably historical figures with increasingly more normal life spans and reigns. Gilgamesh, who ruled not long after the flood, had a reign of 126 years. Later kings held reigns that are independently documented as accurate. The SKL is fascinating on a number of levels, not least of which is its echo of the flood story recounted in the Epic of Gilgamesh as well as the recognition of a king of Uruk with that name. The oft rewriting of the SKL would seem to indicate Sumerians—and later, Mesopotamian cultures—believed it an important document. Some or much of it may have been known outside of scribal circles, and residents in individual cities may have been aware of the portions that described the dynastic successions of kings. Sumerian Temples

Our understanding of Sumerian religion derives both from archaeological discoveries and from the myths and hymns described earlier. Sumerians were deeply religious and expended a great deal of wealth and effort to gain the support from the many gods and goddesses in whom they believed. Different deities served their patron cities and were responsible for various aspects of human affairs. Each Sumerian city boasted a significant temple dedicated to its patron god or goddess, but other temples were also built so that almost no deity went unrecognized. Good examples of Uruk-period city temples are found at the city of Uruk itself, which, perhaps because of its size and power, had two principal patron deities: Anu (the sky god) and Inanna (the goddess of love and war, also known as Ishtar), who was worshipped in the Eanna precinct (Gates 2011). Sumerian temples were enormous, colorful places. They were built of mudbricks, which were then plastered and decorated. The “White Temple” at Uruk (named for the white gypsum plaster clinging to the walls; Figure 16.7), most likely dedicated to the city god Anu, rested on a platform that could be mounted by staircase. Later texts state that these platforms were made of “clean sand” brought in from outside the

Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia 327

Figure 16.7 Plans of the White Temple and Eanna Precinct at Uruk (drawn by S. R. Steadman).

city so that temples could be built upon unsullied foundations. Traces of earlier temples underlay the late fourth-millennium White Temple, indicating this particular part of the city had been dedicated to religious worship for generations. The White Temple had three parts (known as tripartite architecture), with walls that were niched and buttressed to give them texture and monumentality. Inside the temple was an altar and a place to make offerings. Uruk’s Eanna precinct was a bit more elaborate, with pillared halls, several tripartite, niched and buttressed

328  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 16.8 Top: Example of an inscribed “clay nail”; the top of the nail could be painted and then inserted into columns or walls to create designs (Metropolitan Museum of Art, public domain). Bottom: Recreation of columns that would have stood in the Eanna precinct in Uruk showing how clay nails were used to decorate columns and walls (Pergamon Museum, Dosseman, 2021, CC BY-SA 4.0).

temples, and large courts (Figure 16.7). Several buildings were decorated with “clay nails,” the golf-tee-shaped, baked clay objects that were inserted into walls and columns, the heads of which were painted various colors to create decorative designs (Figure 16.8).

Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia 329

Inside the temples were statues of the deity to which the building was dedicated. These statues were made of wood and then covered in gold. The statue was believed to be a living representative of the god or goddess and was treated with great respect, bathed and then clothed in finery each day, and fed the finest of foods, drawn from the offerings made to the temples. That these statues were considered animate—and the deities essential to the welfare of the city—is demonstrated in later times when attackers would “carry off the gods” to their own cities. Later texts lament of Mesopotamian cities that had lost their patron gods and were therefore bereft and at the mercy of any ill fortunes that might befall them. In addition to these large and elaborate temples, smaller buildings in residential neighborhoods may have served as ritual structures for the general population. These smaller structures may not have been temples, but rather, a place to pay homage to the city god or other deity. Some rituals were carried out only in the city temples, attended perhaps only by the elites, while other festivals took place in more public settings where most residents could participate. In the Early Dynastic period, when palaces began to appear, temples grew larger and more numerous (Figure 16.9). The most elaborate temples rested atop platforms built with a clean sand interior and mudbrick exterior. These monuments were visually impressive and demonstrated the power of the god as well as the power of those who could command the labor to build them. That each city boasted a number of temples is evidence of a powerful elite and religious class capable of marshaling an astonishing amount of labor. The temple dedicated to Anu at Uruk likely required hundreds of daily workers for a period of several years to complete the structure (Matthews 2003). At the Early Dynastic site of Khafajeh, the “Temple Oval” also provides a model for Sumerian precincts. The patron god of this city is not yet known but was the divine occupant of the highest temple in the oval which rested on a vast layer of clean sand (Evans 2018). Additional temples on the ground level were dedicated to other deities, including the moon god Sin; these temples may have been important in local and household worship at Khafajeh (Evans 2018). Also found

Figure 16.9 Example of a temple in the city of Ur, dedicated to Nanna/Sin; this temple has been reconstructed both in ancient and modern times including within the last two decades (Tia, 2006, public domain).

330  Africa and the Middle East

within the Temple Oval were workshops and storage, demonstrating the extensive involvement of the temple in the Sumerian economy. Temples were decorated with carvings, decorative objects such as large vases, and perhaps other organic elements now lost to us. One interesting standard element inside Sumerian temples was the “votive statue.” Commissioned by Sumerians who could afford to have them made, these portray Sumerian people, standing with eyes wide and hands held in a specific fold or holding a cup (Figure 16.10). Once completed, these votive statues, often bearing the name of the person they were meant to represent, were taken into the temple and placed on a bench or in a wall niche to face the cult statue of the temple’s god or goddess. The clasped hands signified an attitude of prayer or respect; the cup, a libation to be offered; the statues stood in perpetual admiration of the deity. Those from wealthier classes could command larger and more elaborate statues made of expensive materials, thereby impressing the deity with their dedication and devotion. Religion in the Sumerian period formed the foundation of religious belief for the next several millennia in Mesopotamia and beyond. Different regions worshipped deities of different names, but these gods and goddesses lived in city temples built by the rulers and city elites. Patrons stocked the temples with goods, and statues of various types were placed inside in attitudes of worship. The legacy of kingship, established in the Early Dynastic period, was handed down as well, with ever more powerful kings who deemed themselves divine and justified in their actions by the pantheon of the gods. The Akkadian Empire By the later third millennium, two city-states had become extremely powerful. One of these was the Sumerian city of Ur. The other was farther to the north, in a region later known as Babylonia. Here, a city named Akkad sat at the center of an increasingly powerful kingdom. Akkad came to prominence because “Sargon the Great,” a king of the city of Kish who came to power in 2334 bce, moved his capital to this previously little-known settlement. Unfortunately, Akkad has not been located or excavated, so the records that were certainly generated by Sargon’s scribes are still absent from the record. However, because Sargon became such a famous and accomplished ruler, many texts were written about him in later generations, giving us a quasi-historical account of his reign. Sargon may not have been in the Kish dynastic lineage, as his name translates to “true king,” a telltale sign that he was not. However, Sargon grew to be a very popular king who expanded his Akkadian empire to stretch from the shores of the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Along the way, he conquered Uruk, Ur, and most other Sumerian cities. Sargon was famous not just because of his enormous empire but for his personal accomplishments as well. During his 56-year reign, various stories were apparently circulated about him that made their way into later documents. One of the best-known describes his origins and serves to explain

Figure 16.10 Sumerian stone “votive figurines” from the Early Dynastic period (all in the Metropolitan Museum of Art). Left: Likely a priest, over 41 inches tall (Rogers Fund, 1950, public domain). Right top: Male figurine of alabaster and black limestone, 11.5 inches tall (Fletcher Fund 1940, public domain). Right bottom: Female figurine of gypsum alabaster, 8.5 inches high (Rogers Fund, public domain).

332  Africa and the Middle East

his presence in the royal house of Kish. The story tells of Sargon as a baby, who was rescued from a reed basket floating on the river. He was taken into the royal house, where he was a “cup-bearer” to the king. Because the goddess Ishtar loved Sargon, she helped elevate him to kingship and made his empire powerful. This story provides a legitimate explanation for Sargon’s presence in the royal house and establishes that his reign was sanctioned by a powerful goddess. Perhaps these stories were circulated by administrators and religious personnel during Sargon’s reign to counter claims that he had no right to the throne. They seem to have worked because Sargon became known as a great king, and later rulers took his name to signify their own greatness. Sargon took several actions that changed the nature of key Mesopotamian customs. He appointed his daughter, Enheduanna, to be high priestess of the temple dedicated to Sin (also known as Nanna), the moon god and patron deity at Ur. This began a tradition of appointing women, especially daughters, to important religious positions. Enheduanna was a powerful priestess who was prolific in her composition of hymns, poems, and prayers to Nanna. Because we have not securely located Akkad, what the city temple, dedicated to the patron goddess Ishtar, looked like is unknown, but Sargon was well known for his building projects across his empire. He was responsible for erecting large temples and palaces in several of the cities he conquered, but most have disappeared under later building projects. These architectural monuments were probably decorated with stelae and statues, only fragments of which are left to us today. The power of the Sargonic throne, enhanced by the goddess Ishtar, enabled the king to command a great deal of labor and obedience from his people. During his long reign, Sargon also accomplished a shift in the official language used by the Akkadian state. Texts dating to Sargon’s time and afterward were written in a language now known as Akkadian rather than in the Sumerian used for a millennium. Akkadian is a Semitic language and is thus a relative to Arabic and Hebrew. It was originally theorized that Sargon was from a different ethnic and language group, thus speaking a Semitic rather than Sumerian language. If this is true, then he was the first Semitic king and established a Semitic language as the lingua franca of Mesopotamia. However, some scholars have suggested that Akkadian was actually the language of “the people” even during Sumerian times, and the Sumerian found on earlier texts was a type of state or administrative language no longer spoken by Mesopotamians (Pollock 1999). Whether Sargon was a usurper and brought Semitic language and ethnicity to the forefront of Mesopotamia—or whether he was simply responsible for shifting the language of the state to one actually spoken by everyone—he established the first written Semitic language in the Middle East, one that saw the florescence of many others over the succeeding millennia. At Sargon’s death in 2278, kingship passed to his son Rimush, who reigned only 9 years, until he was assassinated. His brother, Manishtushu, who reigned for even fewer years, also fell to palace intrigue. During the reign of Sargon’s

Ancient Sumer and Religions in Ancient Mesopotamia 333

sons, many cities rebelled against the Akkadian kings, and the powerful kingdom established by its founder was headed toward further instability. However, a new king, the son of Manishtushu, came to power in 2254 bce. Naram-Sin, “Beloved of Sin,” was the grandson of Sargon. Under Naram-Sin the Akkadian empire reached its zenith (Figure  16.11). He took several additional titles, including “King of the Four Quarters” and “King of the Universe,” establishing himself as the ultimate power across the land. While previous Akkadian (and some Sumerian) kings had ruled by “divine right,” Naram-Sin declared himself a divine king, in essence, the patron god of Akkad (Brisch 2013). After Naram-Sin’s death in 2218 bce, his son took the throne, but he was not able to hold the empire together. In describing the final decades of the Akkadian Empire, the Sumerian King List laments “Who was king, who was not king?”, suggesting a period of extreme instability. By 2154 bce, the Akkadian Empire had collapsed. However, NaramSin’s deification set the stage for a long history of divine kingship in the imperial periods that followed (Brisch 2013), allowing rulers to hold a tremendous level of power over the people and institutions they ruled.

Figure 16.11 B ronze head depicting either Sargon the Great or his grandson Naram-Sin (National Museum, Baghdad, public domain).

Sumer, Akkad, and the Power of Religion Sumerians and their successors, the Akkadians, were clearly deeply religious. To please their deities—and apparently, at the behest of their secular and religious rulers—residents offered the products of their labor—and their labor itself—to the glorification of the city and its gods and goddesses. This resulted in landscapes with enormous buildings dedicated to various deities, some of which were large temples capable of storing enormous quantities of goods that then made their way into the hands of those who served the temple. Public ceremonies

334  Africa and the Middle East

and festivals, perhaps sponsored by the temple or palace, gave the public the opportunity to worship and hear the myths and epics recited from the sacred texts. Inside the great temples, high-level ceremonies, probably closed to the public, celebrated other aspects of the cosmology such as the creation of the entire world. Between these public festivals, the common population could carry out daily or regular worship at neighborhood temples. In this way they, could be certain that the gods were propitiated at every level: By the king, by the city temples and priests, and by each individual resident. This approach proved successful, as Mesopotamian empires remained powerful players in ancient Near Eastern history for millennia. The construction of the towering temples required untold hours of human labor, which was seemingly freely given, likely in exchange for sustenance. With the establishment of rule by divine right, the palace emerged, built by the hands of those who possessed the least in society. In exchange, the king and priests ruled the city in accordance with the gods’ wishes, ensuring health and prosperity for all. That the king could intercede with the city god must have been reassuring to his people, further encouraging them to carry out his edicts and building projects. At least at Ur, the power of the elite class was such that several dozen servants could be sacrificed in order to continue on into the next life with their masters. By the Akkadian period, kings no longer ruled simply by divine right but through deification, having become god-kings and thus wielding ultimate power.

Chapter 17

Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism

There are probably more controversies, debates, and reports written about this small region than any other comparable area of the world. The Levant—the coastal region that stretches from modern Syria to the border of modern Egypt (Figure 17.1)—is the homeland to two of the five major world religions of today: Judaism and Christianity. The wealth of archaeological sites in the region and the detailed descriptions of places, people, and events reported in sacred texts have produced enumerable debates about the origins of these two religions. Some textual and excavated data mesh nicely, providing a firm basis for understanding the events that shaped the people and their religions; more often, the two do not match or there is no archaeological evidence available at all. It is at these junctures that scholarly debate about how to understand the development of the religions—and the major figures in them—ensues. The text sacred to these two religions is known as the “Bible” and is divided into two sections, each with numerous chapters (called “books”). The first section, the Hebrew Bible (also known as the “Old Testament,” written in a Semitic language), describes the creation of humans and their world and the events surrounding the emergence of Judaism, and the second section is the Greek Bible (the “New Testament”) which focuses on the emergence of Christianity. This book’s Chapter 1 discussion on ethics addressed the unfortunate past tendency to use excavated materials to “prove” sacred texts. This was a particular problem in earlier Levantine archaeology, but much less so today (Dever 2017a). The following explores the archaeological evidence for the various belief systems, including early Judaism, in the ancient Levant. The First Patriarchs Emerge The first book of the Hebrew Bible, Genesis, begins with the creation of the world and all its inhabitants. It goes on to list the descendant generations of the first humans, describing individuals with exceedingly long lifespans, such as Methuselah, who lived 969 years, and others who fathered children at ages such

DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-23

336  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 17.1 M ap of sites and regions discussed in the chapter (map by S. R. Steadman).

as 182. It also describes a great flood that destroyed the earth, except for some selected humans (Noah and his family) and animals. The flood story is remarkably similar to the one in the Gilgamesh epic described in Chapter 16; the two texts may have derived from peoples who shared versions of this myth, perhaps in ancient Mesopotamia. Genesis records that people after the flood lived shorter lives until they eventually had quite normalized life spans; this progression of long lives followed by normal lifespans parallels the Sumerian King List also described in Chapter 16. After the flood myth, Genesis goes on to describe a man named Abraham, who was born in the southern Mesopotamian city of Ur. While Abraham was in Ur, a god instructed him to take his family and move to the Land of Canaan, which, today, is constituted by the modern states of Israel and western Jordan and the Palestinian territories known as the West Bank and Gaza. He and his contingent made this journey, stopping in Haran for a time (today in southeastern Türkiye). In Canaan, Abraham had a son named Isaac, and Isaac had two sons named Esau and Jacob. Genesis reports which cities these individuals and their

Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism 337

families lived in or near, and archaeologists have excavated many of these. The exact chronological period when these events might have taken place is entirely uncertain; most believe that they should be placed at some point in the first half of the second millennium bce (see the following Table 17.1 [based on Dever 2017b]), but a more exact date is difficult to pinpoint. However, during the Middle Bronze periods—and even in the Late Bronze I period—many of the settlements described in Genesis were not inhabited, presenting a prime opportunity for debate (Steiner 2019). One possible solution is that the texts describing these early patriarchs were composed many centuries later, when these settlements were inhabited; thus, forgotten names of Abraham’s and Isaac’s hometowns were substituted with those existing at the time that the oral tradition became written word (Grabbe 2017). In the second half of Genesis, circumstances took Abraham’s descendants, led by Jacob (and his nine brothers), to live in Egypt. At this point, these descendants are called the “Israelites,” which describes the people faithful to the god who spoke to Abraham. The Israelites remained in the Nile valley for several generations, becoming quite a large population. According to the texts, at some point, the Israelites became slaves of the Egyptian monarchy. It is in the freeing of these slaves and their return to the land of Canaan that the finer points associated with the practice of early Judaism begin to be established. Table 17.1 Table showing periods, dates, and events discussed in the text Middle Bronze I-II

ca. 2000–1550 bce

Late Bronze I

ca. 1550–1400 bce

Late Bronze II

ca. 1400–1200 bce

Iron IA Iron IB

ca. 1200–1150 bce ca. 1150–1000 bce

Iron IIA

ca. 1000–925 bce

Iron IIB Iron IIC

ca. 925–720 bce ca. 720–586 bce

Abraham arrives in Canaan Patriarchs in Canaan— enslaved in Egypt Exodus and Conquest of Canaan Israelites Settle in Canaan Hostilities with Philistines-Saul Emerges Kingdoms of David and Solomon Divided Monarchy I Divided Monarchy II

The Exodus and Wandering in the Wilderness

The Egyptians were excellent record-keepers and often painted daily life scenes on their tombs and temple walls. These would be promising clues to the experiences of the Israelites in Egypt if they were described or depicted, but they were not. This does not mean, however, that there isn’t archaeological evidence that coincides with portions of the biblical narrative. One example of this is the

338  Africa and the Middle East

Egyptian account of the invasion by a people known as the “Hyksos” in the second millennium (ca. 1670–1570 bce), though their presence in Egypt may have come more as an integration than invasion (Stantis et  al. 2020). Archaeological work at Tell el-Dab’a, the Hyksos capital Avaris, has demonstrated that the Hyksos ethnic identity was not Egyptian but rather Near Eastern and possibly “Amorite” (Candelora 2017), a culture speaking a Semitic language similar to that of Canaanite and the language of the Israelites. The Hyksos seem to have taken control of Egypt for a short time and set up their capital city in the Nile Delta (Figure  17.2). However, the Egyptians quickly regained power, and by the later sixteenth century, records claim Egypt “expelled” the Hyksos and destroyed Avaris. Archaeological data shows that, from approximately 1520–1450 bce, Egyptians marched on Canaanite cities and destroyed a number of them (Dever 2003). It is possible, therefore, that some Semitic speakers living in Avaris during the Hyksos period, perhaps those known

Figure 17.2 Painting depicting a man labeled “Abisha the Hyksos” in a Twelfth Dynasty tomb in Egypt, likely referring to a foreign, possibly Canaanite, ruler (Benihassan Project, Macquarie University, public domain).

Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism 339

in the Bible as Israelites, did not return to the Land of Canaan, and instead, came under Egyptian rule in the post-Hyksos Egyptian empire. In the coming centuries, however, there is no textual or archaeological evidence of an Egyptian enslavement of a Semitic-speaking people. Chapter 1 of the biblical book “Exodus” reports that the Israelite slaves in Egypt were tasked with building the cities of Pithom and Ramesses (PiRamesse). For this reason, many archaeologists and biblical historians agree that Rameses II (1290–1224 bce) was the “pharaoh of the Exodus,” the period when the Israelites escaped from Egypt (Steiner 2019). Ramesses II was a very powerful pharaoh in Nineteenth Dynasty Egypt, and he did mount a rigorous building campaign. There is some agreement that the ancient Egyptian city of Ramesses has been identified as the site of Qantir, but archaeologists have yet to locate the site of Pithom. Even more evidence comes from his successor, Merneptah, who commissioned the making of a stele inscribed with his exploits, including the areas he attacked and (possibly) conquered (Figure 17.3). The stele, erected in ca. 1207 bce, mentions the Levantine cities of Ashkelon and Gezer and a people of “Israel,” suggesting that, by the end of the thirteenth century, the land

Figure 17.3 Drawing of the Merneptah Stele in the Cairo Museum (Wellcome Collection gallery (2018–04–05): https://wellcomecollection.org/ works/j5duevqb CC-BY-4.0).

340  Africa and the Middle East

previously known as Canaan was populated by the people of Israel, or the Israelites (Dever 2017b), placing the events surrounding the Exodus in the mid or later thirteenth century bce, during the reign of Ramesses II. According to the Bible, the instigator of the exodus was an Israelite who had been raised in a royal Egyptian house. As a baby, he had been set afloat on the Nile in a reed basket and retrieved by a woman of the royal household and raised as her son. This story explains why an Israelite named Moses was raised as a powerful and wealthy Egyptian until his early adulthood. The story is very similar to that told of Sargon, king of the Akkadians (see Chapter 16); in both cases, the baby-afloat-in-the-basket explains why the most unlikely of men came to hold positions of power. In the narrative, Moses committed a crime in defense of the Israelites and then fled to the desert, where his god revealed that he, Moses, would lead the Israelites out of Egypt back to their homeland in Canaan. After returning to Egypt, Moses tried to reason with the Pharaoh to release the Israelites, and when this failed, Moses’ god brought about ten plagues, which finally convinced the Egyptians to rid themselves of these problem-makers. As might be expected, there is little in the way of archaeological or textual evidence to document these events. Once the Israelites had left the cities of Egypt, the Pharaoh changed his mind and pursued them into the desert. It is here that one of the most famous miracles in the biblical narrative occurs: the “parting of the Red Sea.” The Israelites passed through this body of water, but their god closed the waters on the Egyptians. While archaeology is silent on this event, textual study does aid somewhat. The Hebrew in the book Exodus translates not as “Red” Sea, but “Reed” Sea, which might refer to a marshy area north of the tip of the actual Red Sea. Tidal movements—or the pure muckiness of a marsh—might have allowed people to pass through but would surely bog down chariots and heavily armored soldiers. Herein may lie the explanation of the successful escape of the former slaves from the might of Egypt. After their escape, the biblical narrative describes the long period of “wandering” the Israelites endured on their way back to Canaan. The account takes up the next three books in the Bible (Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), which frequently break away from the narrative to offer codes of behavior and methods of worship that are the backbone of modern Judaism. The period of wandering, almost certainly in the Sinai Desert, is one that is difficult to track archaeologically, since, at this point, the Israelites were essentially mobile pastoralists, leaving little material culture behind. Nonetheless, there have been many attempts to document the Israelites in the wilderness given the important events there. While in the desert, the god of the Israelites revealed the laws by which they should live (now known as the “Ten Commandments”), and finally, offered them a name by which they could call him, “Yahweh,” (Hebrew for “I exist” or “I am”). Yahweh reaffirmed the promise first made to Abraham that the land of Canaan would be their land and that their god would support them if they were true to him. The Ten Commandments, written on stone tablets, instantly

Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism 341

became sacred. The Israelites built a holy container, an “ark,” for them, and wherever they camped, they erected a “tabernacle,” or temple (probably a tent), to house the ark (Figure 17.4). So, for the first time, the Israelites had a name for their god, rules to live by, and a place to worship him. In this time of wandering, then, the first concrete framework for the structure of Judaism was created. The Conquest of Canaan

According to the Bible, after their long period in the wilderness, the Israelites finally reached the border of Canaan, which they prepared to take by force. They

Figure 17.4 A rtistic rendering of Israelites worshiping the Ark (and its contents) during the “wandering” in the wilderness (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

342  Africa and the Middle East

camped in the land of Moab, today in the country of Jordan on the east side of the Jordan River. Moses died in Moab, and leadership fell to another man, named Joshua. The biblical narrative describes a Joshua who is a skilled tactical commander, leading the Israelites against city after city in Canaan. Their very first conquest was the city of Jericho, a heavily defended settlement near the Jordan River. The Israelite god Yahweh caused the walls around the city to collapse. This was followed by a very violent defeat of Ai where the Israelites slaughtered all inhabitants and hanged the king of Ai from a tree. These early defeats of Canaanite cities caused other Canaanite kings to forge alliances with one another to fight against the Israelites. Nonetheless, the Israelites, with the help of their god, defeated city after city, including Hazor, a very important city in the south. After 5 years of battles, the Israelites took residence in their promised land and began to rebuild it. The “conquest” of the Land of Canaan generally dates to the end of the Late Bronze II period in the late thirteenth century. Archaeology offers conflicting data that has given rise to a number of theories on the reentry of the Israelites into Canaan. Proposed in the 1920s, the “Conquest Model” offers a scenario not dissimilar from that described in the Book of Joshua in the biblical text; this model was widely believed until the latter half of the twentieth century, when new models emerged. Many other explanations for the reentry of Israelites into Canaan have been offered, including the notion of a “peaceful arrival” of animal herders. Archaeology has shown that, while some of the cities, noted as “conquered” in the biblical text, do demonstrate destruction levels, others do not. In Moab, where the Israelites are described as preparing for the conquest, there is evidence of the destruction of several sites dating to the Late Bronze II period (Dever 2017b). Of the Canaanite cities described in the biblical narrative, a few are still unexcavated, some show evidence of destruction in the Late Bronze II or very early Iron I periods, while others were either not inhabited or show no evidence of destruction (Dever 2017b). Most notable is the city of Jericho, which was, in the thirteenth century, abandoned, having been destroyed centuries earlier. The same is true for the second settlement on the Israelite itinerary, Ai. Other cities in the biblical list were, indeed, destroyed in the late thirteenth century, but excavation cannot confirm it was Israelites who did the destroying (Ben-Tor and Zuckerman 2008); besides the Egyptians, other empires had carried out campaigns in Canaan during this time and destruction may have come at the hands of any of these powerful kingdoms (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001). Most archaeologists now suggest the evidence does not support a violent “Conquest Model” to describe the entry of Israelites into Canaan. In the “Peaceful Infiltration” model, nomadic animal-herding Israelites (much like today’s Bedouin of the Middle East) slowly moved into Canaan, settled, and took up farming side-by-side with other residents (Rainey 2007). Eventually, their numbers and the force of their culture prevailed, and the region became “Israel.” This theory was also proposed in the 1920s and was celebrated as an

Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism 343

excellent contrast to the more violent, even genocidal, account found in the biblical narrative. A major flaw, however, is in the description of how pastoral nomads act. Ethnographic work on Bedouin and other nomadic pastoralists finds them resisting settlement and avoiding confining areas where large cities and heavily populated landscapes are the norm (Dever 2011). The Peaceful Infiltration model was built on the belief that, given half a chance, Bedouin would always choose settlement over the nomadic life they lead, an ethnocentric conception not borne out in ethnographies of present-day pastoral nomads. Further, the adjustment from herding to farming would have taken generations rather than just a few years, and such a difficult transition would be unlikely to yield a powerful kingdom just a decade or two later. The Peaceful Infiltration model has, therefore, also faded in popularity. Recent scholarship combining both textual and archaeological data argues that understanding the rise of Israel requires a broader view of the Levant in the thirteenth century Mediterranean world. The Late Bronze II period was one in which many empires across the region rose and fell, and always crouching to the south of Canaan was the great Egyptian empire (Steiner 2019). Late in the thirteenth century, the arrival of groups known as the “Sea People” caused disruption from Egypt to Anatolia (Figure 17.5). The chaos instigated by these groups (Sea Peoples may have come from Crete, Cyprus, western Türkiye or even from points further west) caused a ripple effect across Western Asia, disrupting trade and commerce, along with quite violent destructions of key cities (see Killebrew and Lehmann 2012). This socioeconomic chaos may have caused a significant

Figure 17.5  A   depiction of a battle between Egyptians and “Sea Peoples” (1198–1166 bce) in the tomb of Ramses III in Medinet Habu (see Figure 15.1) (public domain).

344  Africa and the Middle East

movement of peoples from the lowlands of Canaan into the hill country (regions known as Judah and Samaria), where they resettled in smaller towns and villages. Some of these people may have included pastoralists who were forced to abandon their traditional lifeways that were no longer possible in the changing political landscape of late thirteenth century Canaan (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001). Archaeology demonstrates that, by the Iron I period (early twelfth century), there was significantly more settlement in the hill country regions, indicating either a new influx of people from elsewhere—or a reorganization of settlement structure within Canaan—or both. This economic instability and population movement may have resulted in the collapse of the Canaanite city-states at the end of the thirteenth century. One possibility is that, as Canaanite city-states disintegrated, the Israelites began to settle in areas west of the Jordan River, allowing them to coalesce into a more distinct ethnic/tribal entity over time (Dever 2003). As new arrivals from various quarters entered Canaan, some of whom perhaps were escaped Semitic slaves from Egypt, they may have chosen to settle with the Israelites with whom they shared ethnic ties (Killebrew 2006). Over time, these groups may have organized something of a tribal political structure that slowly—or perhaps, quickly—developed into something more elaborate and far-reaching, resulting in the first Israelite kingdom, though when the name “Israel” can be applied to the land of Canaan remains uncertain (Monroe and Fleming 2019). Canaanite Religion and the Philistines Whether the Israelites entered Canaan violently, peacefully, or were always there, they were surrounded by people who practiced a polytheistic religion, attended rituals and ceremonies in temples, and worshipped idols representing gods and goddesses. The biblical texts make reference to two groups with whom the Israelites dealt frequently, the Canaanites and the Philistines. The Canaanites and their Religion

Canaanite culture was present in the Levant at least as early as the third millennium bce, and probably earlier (Miroschedji 2011). Canaanites built the cities that biblical texts say the Israelites destroyed in their conquest of Canaan. Material culture in the form of temples, idols, jewelry, and glyptic art such as cylinder seals offer evidence of Canaanite beliefs. These are bolstered by non-biblical textual evidence that describe Canaanite deities and their roles. Three of the most important Canaanite deities were El, Ba’al Hadad (Lord of Thunder), and Asherah; a god named Dagon, perhaps associated with agriculture, was also present in the Canaanite pantheon (Greener 2019). Asherah was associated with love, fertility, and apparently war, while Ba’al was a powerful storm god. The supreme Canaanite god was El, a creator god at the head of the

Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism 345

Canaanite pantheon. Canaanites built temples that held cult statues of the divinities. The temples, found in Middle Bronze II levels at sites such as Megiddo, Hazor, and Shechem, were rectangular in shape, with a single entrance at one of the short ends (Figure 17.6); extremely thick walls suggest the temples stood at some height, making them visible across the city. At the back of the interior large room was either a niche or a dais, often referred to as the “holy of holies,” where the statue of the deity rested (Greener 2019). Some of these temples had entrances flanked by two pillars or projections that may have had symbolic meaning. The temples were located in the center of most settlements and may have been open to any who wished to worship there. A number of temples were situated near open courts or cultic areas that could hold large groups during public ceremonies. In some of these open areas, large stones (known as “massebot”) were erected, perhaps to symbolize various deities in the Canaanite pantheon. It is possible that any Canaanite could make an offering or libation in these open areas at any time, thereby making public worship immediately available to every­one, even if the temple was closed or unavailable for visitation.

Figure 17.6 Examples of Canaanite temple styles (drawing by S. R. Steadman).

346  Africa and the Middle East

In addition to the temples, Canaanites made small statues and images of their deities that could function as subjects of worship at other locations. A number of statues of a female, probably Asherah, have been discovered (Figure 17.7). These are often made of metal and are sometimes in a dagger shape, perhaps representing her role as a war goddess. Other examples illustrate her partially

Figure 17.7 Left: Drawing of a figurine in the Israel Museum displaying a female figure that is likely Asherah. Symbols of her responsibilities are found in the twin children that suckle at her breasts (love) while animals frolic on her thighs (the hunt) (Sigal Lea Raveh, 2019, CC BY-SA 4.0). Right: Image of Ba’al, god of storms/thunder, holding a thunderbolt and planting a spear while attended by a king (Louvre Museum, TYalaA, 2012, CC BY-SA 4.0).

Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism 347

or fully nude, probably in recognition of her role as a fertility and love goddess. Ba’al is found on cylinder seals and carvings (Figure 17.7), often standing beside an important figure (such as a prince) and wearing a horned headdress. The horns may be representative of a bull. Several examples of calf statues have been recovered in ritual locations, perhaps representing Ba’al or his father, El. Statues were discovered at the massebot in the high, open areas near the temples as well as inside the temples. Canaanites could apparently wear images of their goddess to show their devotion and dedication. The Philistines

Another group with whom Israelites apparently had to contend were the Philistines. The Philistines were most likely descendants of the “Sea Peoples” who menaced Egypt and the Levant in the Late Bronze Age. Within a very few generations, those who had settled in the Levant adopted Canaanite styles of language and script but held onto a vaguely Aegean-style material culture that set them apart from their Canaanite and Israelite counterparts (Koch 2020). The Philistines also appeared to adapt readily to the notion of polytheistic beliefs, probably having come from such a tradition in the west. They lived mainly in the southern coastal region and practiced a thriving economy based on maritime trade as well as agricultural production in the inland coastal areas. Philistine settlements such as Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Tel Miqne-Ekron are mainly identified by their material culture, including their unique pottery and figurines that display Aegean influences (Ben-Shlomo 2019) and their unusual glyptic art on cylinder seals that demonstrates styles associated with Cyprus and points west (Figure 17.8). Our best information about Philistine worship comes from the site of Tel Qasile, where several Philistine temples were discovered. Earlier Philistine temples do not look at all like their Canaanite counterparts, but after a century of rebuilding, temples took on a form similar but not exact to Canaanite styles. The interior of Philistine temples held a platform upon which the cult statue of the deity could rest, with interior benches that may have been for parishioners or cult objects donated to the temple. Excavation of Philistine houses indicate there was a strong presence of household cult in this culture; household shrines, figurines, and ritual vessels attest to private worship at home (Ben-Shlomo 2019). Philistines adopted much of Canaanite religion not long after their arrival. An important god is known as Dagon, who may have been a Philistine deity combined with a Canaanite god. Dagon seems to have been associated with fertility and successful agriculture, a crucial endeavor for Philistines, even though they lived mainly along the coast. In fact, as they settled more firmly into the Levantine region, they apparently prospered and their population grew, causing them to expand northward and inland. This brought them into more consistent contact with both Canaanites and Israelites, the latter living primarily in the hill regions

348  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 17.8 Top: Examples of Philistine pottery from Ashdod showing more Aegean-style than Levantine decorative techniques (Museum of Philistine Culture, Hanay, 2012, CC BY-SA 3.0). Right: Plan of a Philistine temple from the site of Tell Qasile (drawing by S. R. Steadman after Ben-Shlomo 2019: figure 2).

of the Levant. At Ekron, the Philistines apparently worshipped a patron deity named Baal-Zebul (“Princely Lord”) who may have derived from Canaanite Ba’al. In biblical texts, this name was corrupted to “Baal-Zebub” which means “Lord of the Flies,” clearly showing Israelite contempt for the gods of their Philistine neighbors (Steiner 2019). The Philistines also worshipped a goddess whose name was Ashtoreth, or Astarte, a deity associated the Canaanite goddess Asherah. The First Israelite Empire According to the biblical tradition, after their entry into Canaan, Israelites may have had trouble following a monotheistic religion. In the book of I Samuel, the Israelites are described as worshipping “foreign gods” and making offerings at “high places” (perhaps at Canaanite massebot). In some instances, in the biblical text, the Israelite god Yahweh and the Canaanite god Ba’al seem to be similar, if not the same deity; in one case, Yahweh is said to have a consort named Asherah (Park 2016)! Given that Israelites had been surrounded by polytheistic religions for centuries, it would not be surprising to find them visiting the temples belonging to the Canaanites. Some Israelites believed selecting an Israelite king would be beneficial for the people, but their religious leader Samuel disagreed. Nevertheless, according to Yahweh’s wishes, Samuel anointed a king when the time came. In the late second millennium, the Israelite political structure may have consisted of small polities, or chiefdoms, each with a leader who wished

Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism 349

to be a king. In the late eleventh century bce, according to biblical texts, a man named Saul emerged as the appropriate choice to be Israel’s first king (Finkelstein 2013); he was anointed by Samuel and then set out to expand the kingdom of Israel. Even before Saul became king, the Israelites had problems with the Philistines. The book of I Samuel reports a bitter battle, in which the Philistines attacked the Israelites and managed to make off with the Ark that held the sacred Ten Commandments, transporting it to the Dagon temple in Ashdod. The Philistines destroyed several Israelite cities as well, firmly cementing a hatred between the two peoples. According to the Bible, wherever the Philistines took the Ark, problems occurred; eventually, they decided to rid themselves of this troublesome sacred object and returned it to the Israelites along with some golden objects (Park 2016). Another story (in Judges 16) describes the love story between Samson, an Israelite, and Delilah, a Philistine. These two married and went to live in a Philistine city. Delilah betrayed her new husband by cutting his hair (in which his extraordinary strength lay) and blinding him. Samson’s god, Yahweh, restored his strength, however, and Samson destroyed a temple of Dagon in Gaza, killing Delilah and several thousand Philistines. These stories suggest a significant rivalry between the two cultures in the early stages of the first Israelite kingdom. David, Solomon, and the First Temple

According to the Bible, troubles with the Philistines apparently continued, and in one battle, Saul was mortally wounded, ending his kingship quite early in his reign. After the death of Saul, the continued sovereignty of the Israelite kingdom hung in the balance. Into this difficult situation stepped a man named David, who had slain a Philistine warrior named Goliath in a previous battle during Saul’s reign. Goliath was a huge and well-armored man, and David, only a young man (perhaps a teenager) at the time, killed him with a simple sling shot. After this feat, Saul invited David to become a leading warrior in his court. However, rivalry between the two led to Saul attempting to kill David, who then went into exile. Not long after Saul’s death, David united the north and south regions so that all of the different Israelite tribes were now part of one kingdom (described in the book of II Samuel); the traditional date for the establishment of the United Monarchy is approximately 1000 bce. Archaeology has yet to find evidence of Saul (Steiner 2019); traces of David’s kingdom are few, and they are controversial. During the late eleventh and early tenth centuries, Philistine (such as Ashdod and Ekron) and Israelite cities and settlements suffered destructions (Dever 2017b), but whether these resulted from armed conflict between the two is still beyond our grasp archaeologically. Excavations at a site known as Tel es-Safi (the Philistine city of Gath) discovered a pottery shard with the name “Goliath” written on it, demonstrating such a name

350  Africa and the Middle East

existed in Philistine culture but not that it referred to the Goliath (Steiner 2019). Most scholars place David’s reign, if such a monarch existed, to ca. 1000–950 bce, followed by his son Solomon’s reign from 950–920 bce (Steiner 2019). The only other relevant archaeological evidence of King David is a stele from a site in northern Israel (Tel Dan), perhaps dating to the ninth century bce, which refers to the defeat of a king belonging to the “House of David,” suggesting the existence of an earlier king by that name and a Davidic dynasty (Mazar 2010). In one of David’s most important battles, the Bible reports that he took the city of Jerusalem, which he chose to be his capital; he moved the Ark there to make it a center of political and religious power. A point of controversy is whether Jerusalem was even more than just a small town in the tenth century (Mazar 2010). Survey data, population models, and minimal archaeological evidence make for a range of interpretations. During the critical period, Jerusalem may have been a village, but it may have rapidly gained in population fitting for a newly declared capital (Finkelstein 2013). Excavation of significant stone structures, variously called the “Stepped Structure,” and the “Palace of David” may date to the proper period of time, and if they do, may attest to the building of a significant structure by a king of the region (Mazar 2010). According to biblical tradition, the third king was Solomon, son of David, who was famous for his wisdom, his wealth, and his building campaigns. During his long reign, Solomon fortified the cities of Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer (reported in I  Kings), Jerusalem, and a number of other cities. Solomon’s most famous endeavor was his construction of the first Yahweh temple in Jerusalem. The numerous Canaanite temples and idols encouraged frequent worship of and obedience to their deities. Israelites, as reported in the biblical texts, were continuously drifting to Canaanite methods of worship, and even visiting their temples and sacred high places. King Solomon built a temple for his people so that they, too, would have a place to worship their god. The building housed the sacred Ark of the Covenant, provided a central location for public rituals, and served as a constant reminder of the true god of the Israelites. As is the case with nearly everything else in biblical history, the archaeological record offers conflicting evidence of these Solomonic building campaigns. Archaeology has, indeed, uncovered evidence of new fortifications built at the cities of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer as well as at Lachish and the Philistine city of Ashdod. All of these cities have undergone extensive excavation. Though there was considerable rebuilding and new construction—due to the complicated stratigraphy at these sites—it is possible, even likely, that the building campaigns date to different periods rather than to a time corresponding to a singular reign (Dever 2017b; Finkelstein and Silberman 2006). The temple that Yahweh commanded Solomon to build is described in great detail in I Kings Chapters 6–7. The exact measurements and even description of construction materials (i.e., “cedars from Lebanon”) lend credence to the belief

Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism 351

that such a structure was, indeed, built in the early decades of the United Monarchy. That a temple did stand is not in dispute, since it was destroyed in the sixth century by a Babylonian invasion. The question is whether it was built during the time of a king named Solomon, in the tenth century. Not surprisingly, the Yahweh temple looked a great deal like a Canaanite temple, with a rectangular structure and a doorway in one of the short ends (Figure  17.9). At the other end was the holy of holies, which held the Ark of the Covenant. At the front of the temple was a portico flanked by two free-standing columns, perhaps meant to mimic columns found in front of Canaanite temples dedicated to Ba’al and Asherah. The craftsmen involved in building Solomon’s temple were probably Canaanite rather than Israelite, and the description of the temple suggests that Canaanite architecture and styles were visible in this first sacred temple. Uncovering evidence for this temple is nearly impossible because the area where the temple would have stood has suffered repeated destruction and rebuilding episodes, almost certainly eradicating any evidence of a tenth century temple. Evidence from other sites suggest that such a temple, as described in the biblical tradition, was possible. At the site of Motza, near Jerusalem, archaeologists have revealed a smaller temple that has the same architectural elements described in the I Kings chapters, suggesting that a larger and grander version might well have stood in the kingdom’s capital city (Garfinkel and Mumcuoglu 2019). In 586 bce, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar marched on Jerusalem and destroyed the entire city, including Solomon’s temple. Nebuchadnezzar also enslaved and deported many of the inhabitants to Babylon, ushering in a period known as the “Babylonian Exile.” Prior to this (perhaps even decades earlier), tradition says the Ark of the Covenant had been secretly removed to keep it safe from invaders as well as from a renegade Israelite king who had allowed Canaanite gods to be worshipped in the Israelite temple. Recent excavations near Jerusalem’s temple mount have revealed a significant stone wall dating to the Iron Age II period that was likely the defensive wall protecting the eastern side of the city (Vukosavović et al. 2021). This discovery only demonstrates that Jerusalem, ahead of the Babylonian attack, was heavily fortified; perhaps these defensive walls, 5 meters thick, were constructed to protect the Israelite’s first temple. The Israelites, after returning from exile, constructed a “Second Temple” in the later part of the sixth century, which stood until 70 ce, when it was utterly destroyed by the Romans (it is unclear if the Ark was returned to this temple). In approximately 20/19 bce, Herod the Great, ruler of Judaea (the region that included Jerusalem), commissioned the renovation of the temple complex (Figure 17.10). He had an enormous platform built, upon which rested an enlarged and more grandiose Second Temple. After the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 ce, no temple replaced it until the Muslims built the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. The presence of this sacred building prevents any archaeological investigation of earlier religious structures.

352  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 17.9 L eft: Plan of Solomon’s temple (CC BY-SA 3.0, public domain). Right: Artistic reconstruction of Israelite Temple built by Solomon (drawing by R. Jennison).

Levantine Religions and the Origins of Judaism 353

Figure 17.10 Reconstruction of Herod the Great’s refurbished Second Temple in Jerusalem (Israel Museum, Ariely, 2008, CC BY-SA 3.0). The Divided Monarchy

According to the Bible, though Solomon appears to have made some fine decisions for his people, including building them a temple, he showed poor judgment in other ways. When David united the northern and southern regions, he treated each equally, appointing a head priest for each region and attempting to be fair to the needs of all. Under David, Canaanite religion was frowned upon and the people of his kingdom were strongly encouraged to maintain their Yahwist beliefs. Solomon, however, was not quite so even-handed. He expelled the priest representing the north and even went so far as to cede some of the northern lands to a king of Lebanon (who had given cedars for the building of the temple). Though he built the temple, Solomon was far more lenient about which gods his people worshipped, riling up the priests of the land who struggled to keep the Israelites true to their own god. The Bible even reports that, in his old age, Solomon worshipped some of the foreign gods followed by his many wives. The kingdom that his father David had built with war, hardship, and single-minded focus on Yahwistic religion became a very different place under Solomon. While David built the power of the United Monarchy, Solomon simply inherited that power and used it, at times, injudiciously over his people. This was to have monumental consequences after his death. After his death, Solomon’s son Rehoboam came to the throne but was rejected by the northern tribes, who declared a different man, Jeroboam, to be their king. Their rejection of the House of Solomon stemmed from his treatment of them during his reign. They wished to re-establish Yahweh as the only deity in the kingdom, regain the lands given away by Solomon, and avoid forced labor assignments under Solomon’s successor. Therefore, in ca 931 bce, after

354  Africa and the Middle East

a short-lived United Monarchy, the “Divided Monarchy” began with Judah in the south—and Israel in the north—establishing a bitter rivalry between the two regions. A divided kingdom invited imperial invasion, first by Egypt, and later, by Assyria. For centuries afterward, Israel and Judah were often controlled by foreign rulers, and they fought with each other as well. Amidst political and military difficulties, religious leaders struggled mightily to keep their people from drifting to the many other temples and deities available for worship. In spite of all these problems, the people of Judah and Israel managed to hang on to their identity as the people of Yahweh and created the foundation of the religion today known as Judaism. Conclusion Much of what we know about the origins of Judaism come from the holy texts sacred to their believers. Decades of archaeology have offered volumes of data on what life was like during these centuries, but the “confirmations” of biblical events that some seek are few and far between. The lack of such findings does nothing to negate the tenets of the religion and the power of belief in it. The story of Judaism is one in which a lone deity led a people through centuries of trial and tribulation to the final establishment of their first temple. In its infancy, the religion of Abraham was one ideally practiced by a mobile, pastoralist people; rituals could be carried out in open spaces with nothing more than perhaps a standing stone as an altar. Throughout the storyline reported in biblical literature, Israelites clung to their beliefs when they were enslaved by Egyptians, continuously seduced by Canaanite temples, and attacked by Philistines, even though they had no temple to their deity to give them strength. Rather than succumb to the gods of more powerful states, religion allowed them to maintain their identity as a believing people. This was, in effect, a rebellion against the power of others who targeted them for the very thing that they would not give up. Their beliefs allowed them— and their religion—to survive.

Chapter 18

Revitalizing the People The Origins of Christianity and Islam

The religions that are today known as Christianity and Islam had their origins hundreds of years apart but developed in somewhat similar circumstances. In each case, religious, political, and socioeconomic strife created a world in which many were anxious about the present and the future. In both religions, a single man offered a message of hope and a new set of practices and beliefs that were, each asserted, the path to a good life both on earth and beyond. In both cases, a few followers became many, and before long, both religions spread well beyond their homelands. The following chapter explores the turbulent social, political, and economic circumstances in place when these religions were founded. Both Christianity and Islam should be understood not only as early cults but as religions that emerged out of a need to revitalize a people. The Roman Levant and the Origins of Christianity By 63 bce, the Levant had become part of the Roman Empire. Prior to this date, infighting between leading Jewish families had created a chaotic and unstable region. When Rome took control, Judaea, as it was then called, was recast as a territory (Figure 18.1). Some of its northern cities and all of the territory east of the Jordan River were placed in the province of Syria. The governor of Syria was given temporary control over Judaea and ensured that it paid taxes to Rome. A provincial ruler was appointed by the Syrian government to oversee Judaean affairs. This ruler, known as an “ethnarch” because he was of Jewish heritage, was generally drawn from the Hasmonean dynasty, a prominent royal Jewish family. In 37 bce, however, Herod, an Idumean (not of royal ancestry) was elected by the Roman senate to be “King of the Jews.” The Judaean population was not pleased with the appointment of Herod because he was not of royal lineage and was viewed as loyal to Rome rather than to his religion and his people. Nonetheless, Herod, known as “Herod the Great,” ruled Judaea for 34 years. Herod the Great had to walk a fine line between remaining loyal to Rome and preventing open revolt by his Jewish population. Another chronic problem was the Hasmonean belief that they should be in control of Judaea, and there DOI: 10.4324/9781003216353-24

356  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 18.1 Map of Roman Palestine/Judaean sites and regions discussed in the chapter (map by S. R. Steadman).

was constant pressure for a new “legitimate” king to be named. In order to celebrate Rome but to also please his subjects, Herod launched enormous building projects. He expanded and renovated the Jerusalem Temple (see Chapter 17, ­Figure 17.10) to curry favor among his people. He also worked to maintain strong ties with the more powerful Jewish sects, which helped maintain his powerbase. These methods were extremely successful during his reign, but upon his death in 4 bce, chaos descended on Judaea. After Herod’s death, there were many claimants to the throne, including his sons and members of Hasmonean families. There were also anti-Roman activities that garnered Roman retaliation and the building of a Roman garrison in Jerusalem (Pearce 2002). Eventually, one of Herod’s sons was appointed ethnarch and ruled until 6 ce. After his ineffective and apparently cruel reign, Rome decided to put Judaea under direct Roman rule. A series of Roman prefects were appointed who were less tolerant of the Jewish religion; they imposed increasingly high taxes on the Judaeans. Best known of these prefects was Pontius Pilate

Revitalizing the People 357

(26–36 ce), who instituted a savage rule; he was eventually suspended by the Roman government due to charges of cruelty and claims that he had engineered at least one massacre (Pearce 2002). The political situation in the first centuries bce/ce Roman Levant, especially in the Jewish state of Judaea, was troubled, even violent at times, laced with cruelty, and often unstable. At virtually no time was a ruler in place who had the people’s best interests at heart; their most peaceful time was under Herod the Great, a man they generally saw as an illegitimate ruler. However, even during his reign, Roman religion crept into Judaea; at one point, images representing the Roman Empire (such as the eagle) were placed in the Jerusalem Temple, inciting a riot. The common population of Judaea did not feel they could turn to their rulers if they were troubled about their daily lives and the futures of their children. Jewish Sectarianism in the Roman Levant

By the first century bce, the ancient religion of Judaism, according to contemporary historians such as Josephus—and others—had developed many “sects.” Best known were the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. Each of these sects promoted different behaviors with regard to the practice of Judaism. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were the two most powerful groups with the greatest number of political connections. The Pharisee approach to religion advocated strict observance of Mosaic law as it was written in the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible). They maintained strict levels of purity in their work and eating habits, and they saw themselves as the holiest of the Jewish people (Nickelsburg 2003). In general, the Pharisees ignored Roman rule, believing that stringent execution of their religious codes would allow them to outlast any foreign ruler. Nonetheless, they did have political ties, which caused them to be either in conflict with—or closely connected to—the ruling elites of Judaea. The Pharisees regularly attempted to convince their fellow Jews that theirs was the only correct path, and those who denied it risked condemnation by Yahweh. The Sadducees constituted the priestly aristocrats, the elites of Jewish society. They saw the Pharisee beliefs as verging on radical; they did not believe in the type of afterlife espoused by the Pharisees and also vied with them for political positioning. The Sadducees seem to have been responsible for the temples and public Jewish rituals, which gave them a high profile in the Roman Levant, and possibly promulgated a strong relationship between them and the Roman rulers. Commoners may have been at the center of a very powerful tug-of-war between the Pharisees and Sadducees in the first century bce. A third group, known as the Essenes, described by the historian Josephus and others, believed, as did the Pharisees, that their interpretation of the Torah was the correct one. They lived lives bound by strict rules of purity and ritual holiness and believed that these were the key to eternal life with Yahweh. In fact, they believed that they had become his chosen people and that other Jewish sects, as

358  Africa and the Middle East

well as non-believers, were doomed. For this reason, they removed themselves from society and lived in isolated communities away from those who did not believe as they did (Nickelsburg 2003). One such community may have been located at the site of Qumran, in the Judaean desert. It is the occupants of the Qumran community that are credited with authorship of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the mid-twentieth century (see later). Given that several ancient historians mentioned the Essenes, it is clear they were not a little-known sect. A fourth sect mentioned by Josephus are the Zealots, who became far better known after their revolt against Rome in 66 ce. They managed to wrest Jerusalem from Rome and held it until 70 ce, when the Romans retook the city and destroyed the temple that had been embellished by Herod. The Zealots retreated to the Roman fortress at Masada, which they took and held for 3 years, in spite of repeated Roman assaults (Figure 18.2). When the Romans finally breached the walls, they found the Zealots had committed suicide rather than live under Roman rule. What is unknown is how well-organized and outspoken the Zealots were earlier in the first century ce. Zealots may have been involved in earlier rebellions against Rome, including one that occurred in 6 ce against the imposition of the Roman Imperial cult in Judaea. In the early first century ce, many chafed under Roman rule, and some were willing to take action against it. In addition to these four sects, scholars have suggested that first century ce Roman Palestine contained other Jewish sectarian groups, each with their own beliefs about proper behavior, attitudes toward Roman rule, and views on the future. Commoners may have felt pressured to join one group or another, to reject Roman rule or go along with it, or perhaps to ignore it all together and retreat from mainstream society. Many people probably just hoped that they could eek out enough of a living to support themselves and their families, pay Roman taxes, and avoid violence. The early first century of the new era was fraught with socio-religious uncertainty, political instability, and harbored an underlying stratum of unrest and incipient rebellion. Jesus and the Origins of Christianity in the Biblical Narrative

The founder of the Christian faith was a man named Jesus whose biography is reported in the first four books (in the first four books of the Greek) of the Greek portion of the Bible (which is also known as “New Testament”). These four books, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (known as the “Gospels”), offer great detail on Jesus’s ministry but lack much detail on the earlier years of his life. Jesus is said to be the direct descendant of King David, who ruled a united Israel a millennium earlier (see Chapter 17). Two books, Matthew and Luke, chronicle the birth of Jesus but they offer conflicting accounts. Matthew’s account suggests Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, around 6 bce, while Luke places his birth in 6 ce, when a census was ordered by the new Roman ruler (Bond 2012). Both authors agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but whether

Revitalizing the People 359

Figure 18.2 View of the site of Masada in Israel where the Zealots successfully fended off the Romans for three years (Godot13, 2013, CC BY-SA 4.0; photo adapted/cropped by the author).

in his parent’s house (Matthew reports Jesus’s parents lived in Bethlehem) or in a stable after traveling to Bethlehem, as reported by Luke, is unknown. Given the lack of detail regarding the exact whereabouts of Jesus’s birthplace in Bethlehem, it is next to impossible for archaeology to attest to the actual “house” or “stable” where the event might have taken place. The “Church of the Nativity”

360  Africa and the Middle East

in Bethlehem was first constructed in the fourth century ce over a cave that was said to be the birth location. That church still stands today. Very little is known about the youth and early adulthood of Jesus. All the Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in the town of Nazareth; the book of Mark suggests Jesus may have worked as a carpenter (Bond 2012). The Gospels, instead, concentrate on the period of Jesus’s ministry, somewhere around the date of 30 ce, when he was in his late 20s or perhaps 30 years of age. As an adult, he appeared at the Jordan River to be baptized by a well-known figure called John the Baptist. John the Baptist is mentioned by all four Gospel authors, and he is also mentioned by the historian Josephus as having had a wide following (Bond 2012). The places where he performed baptisms cannot be attested to archaeologically, but the various documents that describe him suggest he was, indeed, a historical figure. All the Gospels, especially Mark, cite Jesus’s baptism as the defining moment when he realized his identify as the son of God, his mission, and his fate (Bond 2012). Following his baptism, Jesus went to the desert, where he triumphed over temptation and returned ready to begin his ministry. Naturally, there is no way to track Jesus’s time in the desert archaeologically. From the desert, Jesus returned to a region known as the Galilee in the north of what is today the country of Israel. Jesus settled for a time in a town called Capernaum. He attracted the first of his “disciples” (his close followers), who were Sea of Galilee fishermen. At first, Jesus gave sermons in synagogues in the Galilee region, but when the crowds grew too large, he preached on hillsides and in open areas. Jesus also began to perform miracles of healing as well as other feats such as turning water into wine, feeding huge crowds with very little food, walking on water, and later, raising a man from the dead. When speaking in the synagogues, Jesus probably had Pharisees and Sadducees in his audience. However, the majority of his audience in the open arenas was the commoners, the farmers, and fisher folk who made up a large percentage of the Jewish population in Roman Palestine. It is to them that Jesus directed his sermons, which included stories commonly called “parables.” Jesus’s parables recounted stories about farmers, herders, the poor, and the downtrodden. In these stories, Jesus advocated attitudes of peace and enduring love for human beings, not only by their god, but between each other; he discussed the notion of justice and asserted that if someone had erred, if truly repentant, that individual was equal to the most righteous person (Smith 1994). He suggested that the poor and those who had fallen into difficulties were also loved by their god and would be able to enter his “kingdom of heaven” upon their deaths. Jesus did not instruct people to stay true to Mosaic codes of behavior as did the Pharisees, nor did he appear to cater to the power of the Romans. He counseled against violence and did not urge his followers to withdraw from society, but rather, to spread the word of his god to as many as possible. Jesus’s message, contained within his parables, was different from that offered by the other Jewish sects of the day. It was one that professed hopefulness to commoners,

Revitalizing the People 361

who understood the points of the simple stories about people like themselves. His messages about justice and repentance were appealing to many who felt they had not, for many reasons, been able to practice “proper” Judaism, according to one sect or another. After months of traveling the hinterlands of Roman Palestine, Jesus and his disciples entered the city of Jerusalem. Here Jesus, according to the text, undertook several activities that captured the notice of the Sadducees who controlled the “Sanhedrin” (Council of Judges) in Jerusalem. The book of Mark reports that Caiaphas, head of the Sanhedrin, ordered Jesus arrested; Jesus was brought to the house of a member of the Sanhedrin (perhaps Caiaphas’s) to be questioned. Caiaphus sentenced Jesus to death for blasphemy against Judaism and the codes of the land. The ultimate decision to carry out the sentence fell to the prefect, Pontius Pilate; Jesus and two others (thieves) were then crucified to death, a process that took several days. Upon his death, Jesus was buried in the rock-cut tomb of a wealthy follower who subscribed to Jesus’s teachings; the tomb was located just outside of Jerusalem. It is the events after his death that essentially elevated Jesus to the level of founder of a new religion. The Gospels report that, after three days, Jesus arose from the dead (both physically and spiritually) and ascended to heaven to be with his god. Witnesses to this event, to whom Jesus spoke after his death, would go on to report this final episode of Jesus’s life, sparking an even deeper belief in the messages offered by Jesus during his travels in the region. From these events arose the religion we today call Christianity. Was Jesus an Essene? Archaeology and Qumran

In 1947, one of the greatest discoveries concerning the biblical world was made by accident. In the mountainous desert terrain by the Dead Sea, a Bedouin boy was tossing stones into a cave while minding his goats. Hearing a pot break, he then investigated the cave and discovered what are now known as the “Dead Sea Scrolls.” These texts, written on leather “paper,” offer a variety of ancient literature, including versions of the books in the Hebrew Bible, instructions on ritual and purity, and accounts of people and events both known and new, by authors known and unknown. They were rolled and contained in ceramic vessels, which were then capped to preserve the scrolls (Figure 18.3). The translation of these scrolls took decades, but today, after open access and scholarly investigation, some questions have been answered. Most scholars believe the scrolls were written in the second–first centuries bce, but the authorship of them is still a matter of dispute. Some believe the scrolls were authored by Sadducee priests in Jerusalem but were later secreted in the Dead Sea caves during the 66 ce Jewish Revolt, to keep them safe during the expected Roman backlash. Those who support this interpretation point to scrolls that describe elements of rituals and codes of purity that conform to Sadducee interpretations of Mosaic Law (Martinez 2000).

362  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 18.3 Top: Photo of the Qumran region near the Dead Sea showing the area with the caves that held the Dead Sea Scrolls (Lux Moundi, 2012, CC BY-SA 2.0). Bottom left: Examples of Dead Sea Scroll jars (Davide Mauro, 2018, CC BY-SA 4.0). Bottom right: Dead Sea Scroll known as the “Temple Scroll” (Scroll 11Q19, Israel Museum, public domain).

Revitalizing the People 363

The majority of scholars believe that it was the Essenes of Qumran who created the scrolls eventually found in the Dead Sea caves (Flint 2013). Though some have suggested it was a Roman Villa, the main body of scholarship, supported by archaeological discovery, suggests that the ruins at Qumran housed a religious community where Essenes, possibly a dissenting sect of Essenes, lived and copied the sacred scrolls (Meyers and Chancey 2012). This complex housed a group of religious people who had, indeed, withdrawn from mainstream society to practice their beliefs. The Essenes believed the inaccuracy of temple rituals practiced by Sadducees and Pharisees in Jerusalem would delay or prevent the coming of a messiah (savior). They therefore withdrew into the desert, where they could perform the rituals properly. They also set themselves the task of preserving the written literature, now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Archaeology has demonstrated that the pots in which the scrolls rested in the caves were identical to the ones produced in the Qumran community, virtually confirming a connection between the residents at Qumran and the scrolls (Magness 2002). The residents at Qumran apparently hid the scrolls in the caves for the same reason as it was assumed the Sadducee priests might have: to save them from destruction by the Romans. Indeed, the Qumran community was destroyed in 68 ce by the Romans during the Jewish Revolt. Archaeological excavations at Qumran have revealed a complex that housed a community of 150–200 people who lived their lives according to strict ritual codes of purity (Figure 18.4). At one end of the complex was the ritual bath; at the other end were the latrines, strictly separating ritual activities from profane bodily functions (Atkinson and Magness 2010). A section of the complex was devoted to a potters’ workshop, and other areas housed cloth production and

Figure 18.4 Reconstruction of the Qumran community where Essenes might have lived in the first century ce (Hoshvilim, 2015, CC BY-SA 4.0).

364  Africa and the Middle East

other crafts. A meeting hall, eating and cooking areas, and a possible “scriptorium” where the scrolls were composed round out the main components of this self-sufficient complex (Magness 2002). One line of scholarship suggests Jesus was actually an Essene (another suggests John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the Essene) and that the messages Jesus preached to the people are found in the Scrolls. However, there are other elements in the Qumran community and Essene traditions that are distinctly different from Jesus’s ways. One similarity between them is that both the Essenes and Jesus believed in an approaching apocalypse, that the world would end with the coming of a messiah (Flint 2013). This commonality leads some scholars to suggest Jesus may have been trained as an Essene; some even suggest that, during his time in the wilderness, he was actually in the Qumran community. However, many of Jesus’s practices were distinctly un-Essene; he dealt with women, Romans, Sadducees, and Pharisees, all groups the Qumran community had rejected. Jesus also did not really follow the strict ritual practices that were so important to the Qumran community. The Archaeology of Jesus

A section on “the archaeology of Jesus” will be short because archaeology is not about finding individuals, but rather, revealing cultures. This does not mean there is no archaeology from the time of Jesus, there is, and it has a bearing on understanding the historical events of the time. The massive engineering projects commissioned by Herod the Great and his son (Herod Antipas) at sites such as Caesarea, Sepphoris, and Masada show the enormous labor put into constructing these first century bce/ce sites, built in Roman style with theaters, military fortifications, and decorations celebrating Roman themes. There is little doubt that these works, described by Josephus and referenced in biblical texts, were built by these Jewish rulers. The biblical story describes a journey that Jesus’s parents, Joseph and Mary, undertook from Nazareth in the Galilee in the north, southward to Bethlehem in Judaea, which would have been a very long journey for a pregnant woman. It was important for Jesus to be born in the south so that his tie to ancient King David, whose seat was in Jerusalem and who was also purportedly born in Bethlehem, was firmly established (Magness 2012). Nazareth is well attested in the archaeological record; there were certainly residents at this moderatelysized village 2,000 years ago (Strange 2019). There are two possible solutions to the “Bethlehem problem” of Jesus’s birth. Some scholars ask: “Which Bethlehem?” Non-biblical texts mention a Bethlehem in the Galilee, causing some to wonder if it was to a Galilean rather than a Judaean Bethlehem to which Joseph and Mary journeyed (Chilton 2006), noting this would be an easier journey for one in Mary’s condition. A Galilean Bethlehem has not been found archaeologically.

Revitalizing the People 365

A second suggestion is that “Bethlehem” is a later interpolation and that Jesus was actually born in Nazareth (Bond 2012). Matthew and other texts use the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth,” which is a common way to denote a person, the place name usually referring to the place of birth. If Jesus was born in Nazareth, there is good archaeological data to attest to the existence of an actual settlement there at the time of his birth. It is in Nazareth that Jesus, according to the biblical narrative, spent his childhood and early adulthood. Archaeology has discovered houses dating to this period that could easily have housed a family such as that of Jesus, Joseph, and Mary (Dark 2015). At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus lived in a place known as “Capernaum” on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. One of his chief disciples, Peter, also lived there, as did other of Jesus’s disciples. In the mid-twentieth century, two Franciscan priests excavated an octagonal-shaped fifth-century ce church on the shores of Lake Galilee in a town identified as Capernaum; textual evidence in the sixth century identified this as a church that stood over Peter’s house. Beneath this structure was a fourth-century church, though built more like a simple house than a basilica. At the lowest level was the courtyard of a first-century ce house; an inscription on a plaster fragment may contain the name “Peter” (Charlesworth 2006). Many are convinced that this is the site of Peter’s house, a structure that Jesus is reported to have been in on a number of occasions and from which Jesus delivered some of his parables (Figure 18.5). At least by the fourth century, the Christians of the region believed the site to be important, and by the fifth century, it was worthy of the construction of a significant church. The portion of the biblical narrative that described Jesus’s early ministry as occurring in synagogues around the Galilee was unsupported until relatively recently. At a site known as Migdal, named for Mary Magdalene, who also appears in the biblical narrative as a confidant of Jesus, archaeological excavations have revealed what appears to be a rural synagogue dating to what is considered to be the time of Jesus (Sabar 2016). At a site near Nazareth called Tel Rekhesh, excavations uncovered a room that may have functioned as a rural synagogue, also dating to this period (Aviam et al. 2019). As noted earlier, Jesus’s disciples were commoners, rather than from the more powerful Pharisee or Sadducee sects. Peter himself was a fisherman piloting a boat with several fishermen, several rowers, and their catch. In 1986, a severe drought lowered the Galilean Sea, exposing lake shores that had not been visible for centuries. A few miles from Capernaum, the remains of a boat were found and excavated on the lakeshore. It measured 8 feet in width and was 26 feet long; it was able to hold a crew of eight or nine along with a cargo of fish (Crosson and Reed 2001). Dated to the first century ce, the boat is colloquially known as the “Jesus Boat.” Though perhaps not the boat in which Peter and Jesus traveled, it does attest to the existence of boats in Galilee such as are described in biblical texts (Magness 2012).

Figure 18.5 Top: Aerial photo of the Kfar Nahum (Capernaum) synagogue dating to the fourth-fifth century ce, which perhaps rests above an original synagogue in which Jesus may have spent time; the housing area surrounding it dates to the first century ce and within this area is a structure that may have belonged to Peter, Jesus’s first disciple (Avramgr, 2015, CC BY-SA 4.0). Bottom: Artistic rendering of “Peter’s house” at Capernaum, his fishing boat, and Jesus’s recruitment of his apostles (drawing by M. J. Hughes).

Revitalizing the People 367

There are many churches in Jerusalem commemorating the various events in Jesus’s life leading up to his death. For instance, the “Church of All Nations” in the region known as Gethsemane is said to mark the place where Jesus was arrested by agents of the Sadducees. In another part of the city stands the “Shrine of the Holy Sepulcher” that, reputedly, marks the location of Jesus’s tomb. Though it was built very early (begun during the reign of Constantine in the fourth century ce), there is no archaeological evidence to indicate that the church marks the exact tomb in question. In the 1970s, excavations on the western hill of the Old City area of Jerusalem, an area that offered a direct view of the temple mount, revealed several large houses dating to the first century ce; textual sources suggest that the Sadducee high priests lived in this area (Crosson and Reed 2001). One house was of “palatial” dimensions, covering approximately 6,000 square feet, with a large courtyard and numerous rooms decorated with frescoes on the walls and mosaics on the floors. These houses of the high priests attest to their wealth and power in first century ce Jerusalem. In the Gospels, Jesus was arrested and brought to the “courtyard” of the high priest’s house, probably Caiaphas. With Caiaphas were other priests and scribes, the former to assist Caiaphas in the assessment of Jesus’s crimes and the latter to record the proceedings. It would have taken a large courtyard, such as that found in the most palatial of the homes discovered, to hold such a crowd. Whether Jesus was sentenced in this palatial house or not, excavations have demonstrated that houses such as those described in the Gospels certainly existed. In 1990, antiquities thieves looted several ossuaries (stone coffins) from a cave near Jerusalem (Jacobsen 2012). One of these ossuaries bears the name Caiaphas and even suggests he was a priest (Figure  18.6). This stone box was beautifully carved and must have been commissioned by someone of some wealth and power, consistent with someone who served as the high priest of a powerful Jewish sect. This archaeological discovery, unfortunately unprovenanced due to illegal activities, is quite suggestive that Caiaphas the Sadducee High Priest, most famous for sentencing Jesus to death, was an historical figure (Evans 2006). The method of Jesus’s execution, crucifixion, is not in dispute as there is ample textual evidence to document that the Romans were fond of this method for “lower class” criminals (Crosson and Reed 2002). Crucifixion was very public, meant to act as a deterrent to others who might contemplate actions against Roman law. Crucified victims were generally left to rot where they died, slowly decaying, aided by carrion eaters and the hot and dry weather. For those of Jewish faith, not only did they fear this horrible and sometimes days-long process of death but also the fact that they would not be properly buried, a necessity for a successful afterlife (Bond 2012). Some scholars have suggested that the biblical story describing the burial of Jesus in a rock-cut tomb could not be accurate, given that crucified victims weren’t buried. Had Jesus not been buried, the story describing his resurrection several days later, one of the linchpins of Christianity,

368  Africa and the Middle East

Figure 18.6 Photo of the “Caiaphas ossuary” in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem (Deror–avi, 2012, CC BY-SA 2.5).

would be in jeopardy. However, in 1968, a cave with several ossuaries was discovered. In one of these was a man whose name, inscribed on his coffin, was “Yehochanan.” Yehochanan’s ankle was attached, by nail, to a piece of wood (Tsaferis 1985). Upon examination, archaeologists determined that Yehochanan had been crucified; when the nail was driven through his ankle into the wood of the cross, it bent and could not be extracted. Therefore, after his death, this portion of the beam was cut from the cross so that family members could remove him from his death place for burial in the family tomb. This discovery documented that, in some cases, victims of crucifixion could be removed from the cross and buried, as is recounted in the biblical story of Jesus’s death. An aspect of the Jesus narrative not discussed in the foregoing pertains to the miracle of healing and other miraculous events such as carrying out exorcisms. The Gospels are firm in their assignment of healing abilities to Jesus. Most often, Jesus healed by touch or declaration, but occasionally, he may have used more evocative methods such as incantations or bodily fluids such as spittle (Bond 2012). In several cases, Jesus “cast out” devils from afflicted persons; belief in possession and “evil spirits” was common at this time (Bond 2012). In the same way that belief in a man named Jesus might have aided in healing, so

Revitalizing the People 369

might someone who believed themselves afflicted by evil suddenly feel pure. It is impossible to archaeologically document miraculous events such as turning water into wine, but the description of these is consistent with someone who may have been seen to have special healing and spiritual abilities. Some have suggested that many of the abilities exhibited by Jesus are most closely associated with a very talented and powerful shaman (Craffert 2008), as outlined in Chapter 4. Other scholars have identified what they believe are references to shamanistic activities in the Hebrew Bible (Gerstenberger 2019; Miller 2011); therefore, there is no reason to doubt that individuals who exhibited shamanistic abilities were still recognized during the time of Jesus. Given that Jesus primarily ministered to the rural commoners, it may have been more likely for such people to turn to a “local” shaman for advice, help, and healing than to the powerful priests in Jerusalem. Conclusive Remarks on the Origins of Christianity

Scholarship on the emergence of Christianity, whether archaeological, textual, or religious, includes a vast and complicated set of documents that raise as many controversies as they solve. What is clear, however, is that first century ce Roman Palestine was a difficult and chaotic place, and many Jewish sects offered a possibly unappetizing array of methods to deal with religion, Romans, taxation, and lives of hardship. Into this mix, biblical texts tell us, walked a man who offered a different path for the poor and less fortunate; he described a god that did not discriminate between “haves” and “have nots,” one who did not seem as concerned with the strict rituals of the Pharisees and the priestly Sadducees. This god did not propose violence as an answer, nor utter rejection of society. Rather, humans were meant to trust in their god, love and respect each other, and work hard. These were principles many could understand and accomplish, and so they followed this Jesus and his messages and eventually, after Jesus’s death, they followed his growing number of disciples. Christianity began as a cult-like movement, a newly developed sect of Judaism that quickly emerged as a full-blown alternative religion. In its infancy, Christianity was not only a cult but might also be described as a revitalization movement. Many within the Jewish population of first-century Roman Palestine believed that life could not get much worse, and perhaps, the world was even nearing its end. The messages from the god of Jesus gave them hope and strength to continue––an essential component in a revitalization movement. Such movements combine elements of the previous, pervasive beliefs and new elements as well—certainly a valid description of early Christianity. Though initially, Christianity began simply as a cult-like defection away from the Judaism of the time, the foundations laid by the figure known as Jesus did eventually lead to a rejuvenated community of people who built a religion that has become the most widely practiced in the world today.

370  Africa and the Middle East

Muhammad and the Origins of Islam The prophet Muhammad (570–632 ce) lived in southern Arabia and, like Jesus before him, inspired a new religion; Islam is the second most widely-practiced faith in today’s world. Archaeologically, we know even less about Muhammad and his time than we do about Jesus and Roman Palestine, but text-based histories offer a detailed account of his adult life. As was the case in first century ce Roman Palestine, the sixth–seventh centuries in Arabia were somewhat unstable, and many, including Muhammad, sought a more peaceful and humane world. The following discussion examines the possibility that Islam should be considered a type of revitalization movement that transformed into a major religion, far beyond its cult-like beginnings. Pre-Islamic Arabia

Our knowledge of pre-Islamic Arabia is quite incomplete due to several factors, including limited excavation and the Islamicization of the peninsula by the early Muslims. At the time of Muhammed’s birth, there were a number of religions practiced in Arabia, including the now firmly established Christianity, Judaism, and some elements of a religion known as Zoroastrianism, mainly practiced in Persia (Lindstedt 2018). Also prevalent was a pre-Islamic polytheistic belief system, mixed with animism, practiced throughout the peninsula. In many respects, pre-Islamic Arabia can be described as composed of ethnic and tribal groups, each with their own identity, often speaking different dialects and practicing varying belief systems (Webb 2018). Villages, towns, and small cities dotted the southern portions of the Arabian peninsula, in which settled peoples dwelled, sometimes relying on agriculture, in other cases surviving primarily on the trade of critical and desirable goods. The other main occupants of Arabia were the Bedouin (also known as the Ḥijāz), nomadic pastoralists who navigated the trade routes across the peninsula (Lindstedt 2018). By the late sixth century, two major empires dominated the region: The Byzantine and the Sassanian (Figure 18.7). The Christian Byzantine empire, inheritors of the Roman Empire, controlled Anatolia, the Levant, and Egypt and had allies in northern Arabia. The Sassanians, a Persian empire (primarily Zoroastrians), stretched from Iraq to Central Asia and included part of eastern Arabia. Though neither empire ruled western and southern Arabia, the conflicts between the two behemoths did affect Arabian trade and diplomacy; the Byzantine zeal to spread the Christian faith had also begun to make inroads on the Arabian peninsula. Missionaries had converted Arab tribes in the northern peninsula and had created significant Christian communities in what are today’s Sudan and Ethiopia, and in today’s Yemen in southwestern Arabia. As noted earlier, both Bedouin and settled groups were organized in tribal confederations based on familial, economic, and political associations; rivalries

Revitalizing the People 371

Figure 18.7 Map of Arabian sites and regions discussed in the chapter (map by S. R. Steadman).

between tribes were common and were occasionally exacerbated by the political maneuverings of surrounding empires. Merchants in the city of Mecca made arrangements with tribal leaders (including the Bedouin) to allow safe passage for goods traveling from Mecca to elsewhere and for protection of their caravans. In return, the caravans would carry tribal goods as well and bring wealth back to the tribal leaders who ensured safe passage (Ibrahim 1982). Muhammad’s tribe, the Qureysh, had made these arrangements with the neighboring Bedouin, a century before his birth. These trade arrangements resulted in very lucrative returns for all. Routes to Syria, Egypt, and the Mediterranean were established, and merchants moved goods without fear of attack or theft; strong ties developed between the Qureysh family of Mecca and tribesmen across the peninsula. Meccan merchants established trade with both Byzantine and Sassanian merchants and regularly traversed the Red Sea to trade with Africans as well. By the sixth century ce, Mecca had become an important player in the international market (Ibrahim 1982).

372  Africa and the Middle East

The general Arabian attitude was that the best virtues were preserved in the Bedouins’ ancient nomadic lifestyle, including generosity to those in need, the trustworthiness of their word, and a strong sense of honor (Moreman 2016). The Bedouin were known for their poetry and oral traditions, fierce loyalty to tribal affiliations, ancestors, and kin, and deep knowledge of the desert. The Bedouin were willing and able to defend themselves, whether against the settled Arabian town-dwellers of the southern peninsula or the major Byzantine and Sassanian empires to the north (Firestone 1999). Religion in Pre-Islamic Arabia

The majority of our information about pre-Islamic Arabian religion comes from inscriptions that name gods and goddesses (Figure 18.8) and records from nonArabian peoples (such as Romans, Byzantines, and Persians). Texts and archaeological remains confirm that pre-Islamic Arabia was polytheistic, with some of the deities worshipped having connections to Greek, Syrian, and Persian gods and goddesses. Temples in the Arabian towns and cities held idols dedicated to these deities; residents made sacrifices and offerings and attended public rituals celebrating them. Some of the principle Arabian deities included three goddesses known as Al-Lāt (Figure 18.9), Manāt, and Al-‘Uzza; these goddesses were the

Figure 18.8 Example of third century ce pre-Islamic south Arabian script showing a dedication to a pre-Islamic god known as Talab, housed in the Museum of the Ancient Orient, Istanbul (Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP, 2018, CC BY-SA 4.0).

Revitalizing the People 373

Figure 18.9 Stone carving showing the goddess Al-Lāt (center) in military dress standing atop a lion; the two females flanking her may be her sisters Al-‘Uzzā and Manāt (Iraq Museum in Baghdad, Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP, 2018, CC BY-SA 4.0).

374  Africa and the Middle East

daughters of a powerful god named Al-Lah (Kenoussi 2020). Al-Lāt was goddess of the moon, Manāt was associated with death and fate, and Al-‘Uzzā, with war. The Quraysh tribe, into which Muhammad was born, recognized Al-‘Uzzā as their patron goddess. These deities and many more had statues erected in temples across Arabia. The temple in Mecca, the “Ka’aba,” housed the idols of numerous deities and was considered extremely important, serving as a major pilgrimage (“hgg”) destination each year (Webb 2013). There were many other deities worshipped across Arabia, many with important temples serving as pilgrimage destinations (Al-Jallad 2022); during important pilgrimages, hostilities ceased and everyone was allowed safe passage to perform their sacred duties. Temples may have been cared for by priests or Sanctuary guards who were responsible for activities during pilgrimages and important rituals (Moreman 2016). The Bedouin believed in—or at least acknowledged—many of the deities whose idols stood in the city temples. Their more immediate focus was on the supernatural beings, closer to spirits than gods, that inhabited their landscape. The Bedouin practiced animism, believing that certain places such as mountains, oases, caves, or other remarkable natural features were particularly sacred. Inscriptions offer evidence that Bedouin offered animal sacrifice, including camels, to their deities, especially before raids or dangerous journeys; they followed the pilgrimage calendar that involved temples in the towns (Al-Jallad 2022). Ritual purity before the pilgrimage and before worship in a temple was also important to the Bedouin. They practiced ancestor veneration, demonstrated through their elaborate burial customs, which included animal sacrifice, erection of stones dedicated to ancestors, and inscriptions suggesting that ancestors inhabited the natural landscape (Moreman 2016). Two important religious practitioners in Bedouin culture were the poets (sha’ir), who were considered inspired by the spirits and who could speak to the ancestors through their poetry, and the kahin, who can be considered shamanistic practitioners (Moreman 2016). The kahin could assist the Bedouin in religious functions, seek (sometimes through spirit possession) spiritual knowledge about and solutions for problems encountered by the Bedouin, and engage in healing practices. A set of spirits that routinely aided the poets and the kahin were known as jinn; these spirits might be considered as “tricksters” (see Chapter 2), given that they were as likely to inflict harm and create problems as they were to inspire poetry and give aid (Moreman 2016). Muhammed and the Origins of Islam

By the later sixth century ce, the Qureysh tribe had grown wealthy and powerful and had become one of the leading families of the Meccan trading center. At this time, wealthy trading families, including the Qureysh, were growing wealthier, while, at the same time, many poor were thrust into even greater poverty. Mecca drew a growing population of merchants anxious to engage in the

Revitalizing the People 375

thriving economy, and others seeking work in the many different sectors needed to produce goods and support an increasingly large city. Many of these laborers were indebted to merchants and came to Mecca to work off their debt; they severed their tribal ties so that their personal debt did not fall onto the shoulders of their kin (Ibrahim 1982). As debt piled up on individuals, slavery became increasingly common, as did a growing class of poor; Mecca became a heavily stratified class society with powerful families such as the Qureysh at the pinnacle. As class stratification and concerns over the attainment or retainment of wealth became paramount, kin and tribal ties were weakened; merchants could not always be trusted, nor could wage laborers, based only on tribal affiliations. In addition, the plight of the poor and destitute increased as the wealthy were less inclined to spend their earnings on those who were less fortunate than they; this became especially prominent as tribal loyalty eroded (Ibrahim 1982). The late sixth century in Mecca was a time of some political instability as empires competed for territory and worked to spread their own religious faiths. Arabia was a place in which the possession of wealth was quickly becoming one of the most important values. The traditional year of Muhammad’s birth is 570 ce. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was a direct descendant of Abraham, through his second son Ishmael (Reynolds 2023). During the first 5 or 6 years of his life, the Sassanians and the Byzantines fought battles over Arabian territories, and Mecca was actually under the control of each empire for a short while. Muhammad’s father died before his birth, his mother passed away when he was 6 years old, and his grandfather died not long after that. Muhammad was then raised by his uncle who was a leading merchant in Mecca. One tradition suggests that, during his early childhood, Muhammed lived among the Bedouin (Reynolds 2023), perhaps to absent him from the troubled political chaos of Mecca but also to allow the boy to absorb the virtues and codes of behavior for which the Bedouin were known. While Muhammad was still quite young, his uncle took him on a trade venture to Syria, during which time he may have once again lived among the Bedouin. At age 25, Muhammad was ready to lead his own caravan, and he did so, escorting the merchandise of a wealthy widow named Khadija, who was from another leading family in Mecca. Muhammad and Khadija then married and Muhammad became the head of her merchant family, combining the power of the Qureysh tribe with that of Khadija’s. Muhammad began to take long sojourns in the desert, seeking out caves where he would meditate, sometimes for days at a time. During these times, he fasted and gave what food he had to the poor who visited him in his solitude. Muhammad was troubled by the state of human affairs around him, including the political chaos of imperial gamesmanship, but especially by his fellow tribesmen’s concern for wealth and the erosion of human social relationships. As Muhammad meditated on the corruption and lust for wealth that had become commonplace among his people, he began to question

376  Africa and the Middle East

the religion he had known all his life. He pondered the existence of multiple deities and wondered whether there wasn’t a different path. The next events are recorded in the Muslim holy book known as the Qu’ran. In approximately 610 ce, during one of his seclusions in a cave outside Mecca, Muhammad was visited by an angel named Gabriel, who ordered him to recite a message from the god Al-Lāh. Subsequent visits and many recitations resulted in the holy Qu’ran (Reynolds 2023), which translates to “recitation,” recalling the original method of its composition. These recitations revealed to Muhammad the true path that would lead his people back to purity and morality, peace and loyalty, and care for the poor: Through the worship of the one true god named Al-Lāh. Out of the recitations came the “Five Pillars of Islam,” which include belief in the one true god, prayer, fasting, giving alms (support) to the poor, and making a pilgrimage to Mecca. Following these tenets, said Muhammad, would lead people back to the high virtues of previous times and to the belief in the one true deity that existed in the supernatural world. Muhammad’s belief system became known as “Islam,” meaning “submission” to the will and guidance of Al-Lāh. Part of Islamic belief dictated that idolatry was wrong, and Muhammad advocated for the destruction of the hundreds of idols in the temples throughout Arabia, particularly in Mecca. This did, indeed, occur in post-Islamic Arabia, explaining the scarcity of archaeological evidence for earlier periods. The ancient practice of the pilgrimage, however, remained an essential element in the new religion. The Qu’ran—and another set of Muslim holy texts known as the Hadiths—describe the first pilgrimage to the Ka’aba, made by Abraham (known as Ibrahim in Islam), who is believed to have created the Ka’aba (Webb 2013). In this way, Muhammad and the Qu’ran connected an ancient tradition of pilgrimage practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia with the newly emerging religion, allowing the people of Arabia to continue a sacred practice. Today the “hajj” (pilgrimage) to Mecca is one of the most sacred events in Islam (Figure 18.10). At first, Muhammad attracted only a few followers. They were persecuted in Mecca and eventually fled to the city of Yathrib, later known as Medina (this fleeing is known as the “Hijra”), where Muhammad and his beliefs were accepted and Islam began to spread. By the time of Muhammad’s death in 632 ce, Meccans and numerous tribal groups to the north and south of Mecca and Medina subscribed to Islamic beliefs. The successors to Muhammad continued to spread the religion until, little more than a century later, Islam had spread to North Africa and well into Western and Central Asia. Conclusive Remarks on the Origins of Islam

Like Jesus, Muhammad was troubled by the world around him. It was one filled with political chaos, warring tribes, corruption, and mistrust. The values, codes of honor, and generosity Muhammad experienced as a boy were eroding away

Revitalizing the People 377

Figure 18.10 Photo of Mecca and the modern pilgrimage. In the center is the holy Ka’aba (Aidar Ayazbayev/Dreamstime.com).

among the city-dwellers of his adulthood. Muhammad sought a better world, one that was not as confusing and dangerous and one in which wealth was not the most important measure of a human. Like early Christianity, early Islam also began as a cult movement, initially followed by only a few, it then spread with rapidity. The growth of Islam brought cohesion and vitality to the people of Arabia, and eventually, regions well beyond. The tenets of Islam appear to combine elements of the ancient beliefs in morality and compassion, with newer ideals laid out in Muhammad’s recitations. These offered a pathway to a faith, in which

378  Africa and the Middle East

a single god oversaw all aspects of human life and simple acts such as prayer and a strong moral code would result in a pure existence and a rewarding afterlife. We tend to think of “cults” as short-lived, fringe movements that cease after the death—or occasionally the imprisonment—of the cult leader. It is hard to imagine that present-day cults might have future impacts that rival Christianity and Islam. Were these religious founders and their followers more charismatic than cult leaders today? Were people in greater need of guidance and religious direction in the past than today? Did the world seem far more dire, more on the edge of chaos, in the past than today? Perhaps all of these elements, combined with many more, created settings in which small, cult-like revitalization movements, one about 2,000 years ago, and one about 600 years later, succeeded where many others had failed. Archaeology can only give us a narrow glimpse into the world in which these earlier believers dwelled; the rest of our understanding must come from our willingness to step into the belief systems of these ancient peoples and see their world through the lenses of the past.

Bibliography

Abrams, Elliot M. 2009 “Hopewell archaeology: A view from the northern Woodlands.” Journal of Archaeological Research 17: 169–204. Akazawa, Takeru, Sultan Muhesen, Yukio Dodo, Osamu Kondo, and Yuji Mizoguchi 1995 “Neanderthal infant burial.” Nature 377: 585–586. Al-Jallad, Ahmad 2022 The Religion and Rituals of the Nomads of Pre-Islamic Arabia: A Reconstruction Based on the Safaitic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill. Aldhouse-Green, Miranda, and Stephen Aldhouse-Green 2005 The Quest for the Shaman. London: Thames and Hudson. Allen, Charles 2003 The Search for the Buddha. The Men Who Discovered India’s Lost Religion. New York: Carroll and Graf. Allen, Sarah 2007 “Erlitou and the formation of Chinese civilization: Toward a new paradigm.” Journal of Asian Studies 66.2: 461–496. Alt, Susan M. 2018 Cahokia’s Complexities: Ceremonies and Politics of the First Mississippian Farmers. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Alt, Susan M., Jeffery D. Kruchten, and Timothy R. Pauketat 2010 “The construction and use of Cahokia’s Grand Plaza.” Journal of Field Archaeology 35.2: 131–146. Alva Meneses, Néstor I. 2008 “Spiders and spider decapitators in Moche iconography.” In The Art and Archaeology of the Moche: An Ancient Andean Society of the Peruvian North Coast, Steve Bourget and Kimberly L. Jones (eds.), 247–261. Austin: University of Texas Press. Anderson, David G. 2005 “Pleistocene human occupation of the Southeastern United States: Research directions for the early 21st century.” In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, Robson Bonnichsem, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael R. Waters (eds.), 29–43. College Station: Texas A&M University. Andrushko, Valerie A., Michele R. Buzon, Arminda M. Gibajac, Gordon F. McEwan, Antonio Simonetti, and Robert A. Creaser 2011 “Investigating a child sacrifice event from the Inca heartland.” Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 323–333. Appelt, Martin, Eric Damkjar, and T. Max Friesen 2016 “Late Dorset.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic, T. Max Friesen and Owen K. Mason (eds.), 783– 806. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Argote, Denisse L., Andrés Tejero-Andrade, Martín Gárdenas-Soto, Gerardo CifuentesNava, René E. Chávez, Esteban Hernández-Quintero, Alejandro García-Serrano, and Verónica Ortega 2020 “Designing the underworld in Teotihuacan: Cave detection

380  Bibliography beneath the Moon Pyramid by ERT and ANT surveys.” Journal of Archaeological Science 118: 105141. Arnold, Jeanne E. 1996 “The Archaeology of complex hunter-gatherers.” Journal of Archaeological Methods and Theory 3: 77–126. Arnold, Jeanne E., Scott Sunell, Benjamin T. Nigra, Katelyn J. Bishop, Terrah Jones, and Jacob Bongers 2016 “Entrenched disbelief: Complex hunter-gatherers and the case for inclusive cultural evolutionary thinking.” Journal of Archaeological Methods and Theory 23: 448–499. Arnold, Philip J. III 2005 “The Shark-Monster in Olmec iconography.” Mesoamerican Voices 2: 1–38. Arnold, Philip P. 1999 “Eating landscape: Human sacrifice and sustenance in Aztec Mexico.” In Aztec Ceremonial Landscapes, Davíd Carrasco (ed.), 219–232. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Arsenault, Daniel 2013 “The aesthetic power of ancient Dorset images at Qajartalik, a unique petroglyph site in the Canadian Arctic.” Boletin del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino 18.2: 19–32. Aruz, Joan 2018 “Reflections on fantastic beasts of the Harappan world. A  view from the west.” In Walking with the Unicorn: Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume, Dennys Frenez, Gregg M. Jamison, Randall W. Law, Massimo Vidale, and Richard H. Meadow (eds.), 26–32. Oxford: Archaeopress. Atkins, Nancy J. 2003 “The burials of Pueblo Bonito.” In Pueblo Bonito: Center of the Chacoan World, Jill E. Neitzel (ed.), 94–106. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books. Atkinson, Kenneth, and Jodi Magness 2010 “Josephus’s Essenes and the Qumran community.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129.2: 317–342. Aubert, Maxime 2012 “A review of rock art dating in the Kimberley, Western Australia.” Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 573–577. Aubert, Maxime, Pindi Setiawan, Adhi Agus Oktaviana, Adam Brumm, P. H. Sulistyarto, Erlang Wahyu, B. Istiawan, T. A. Ma’rifat, V. N. Wahyuono, F. T. Atmoko, Jian-xin Zhao, Jillian A. Huntley, Paul Taçon, D. L. Howard, and H. E. A. Brand 2018 “Palaeolithic cave art in Borneo.” Nature 564.7735: 254. Aveni, A. F., E. E. Clanek, and H. Hartung 1988 “Myth, environment, and the orientation of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan.” American Antiquity 53.2: 287–309. Aviam, Mordechai, Hisao Kuwabara, Shuichi Hasegawa, and Yitzhak Paz 2019 “A 1st– 2nd century CE assembly room (synagogue?) in a Jewish estate at Tel Rekhesh, Lower Galilee.” Tel Aviv 46: 128–142. Bahn, Paul G. 2001 “Save the last trance for me: An assessment of the misuse of shamanism in rock art studies.” In The Concept of Shamanism: Uses and Abuses, HenriPaul Francfort and Roberte N. Hamayon (eds.), 51–93. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Bailey, Douglass W. 1994 “Reading prehistoric figurines as individuals.” World Archaeology 25.3: 321–331. Balter, Michael 2005 The Goddess and the Bull. New York: Simon and Schuster. Balzer, Marjorie M. 2003 “Sacred genders in Siberia. Shamans, bear festivals, and androgyny.” In Shamanism, a Reader, Graham Harvey (ed.), 242–261. London: Routledge. Bard, Kathryn A. 2015 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bibliography 381 Barnes, Gina L. 2015 Archaeology of East Asia: The Rise of Civilization in China Korea and Japan. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Bayliss, Alex, Alasdair Whittle, and Michael Sysocki 2007 “Talking about my generation: The date of the West Kennet Long Barrow.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17.1: 85–101. Becerra-Valdivia, Lorena, and Thomas Higham 2020 “The timing and effect of the earliest human arrivals in North America.” Nature 584: 87–92. Beck, Margaret 2000 “Female figurines in the European Upper Paleolithic: Politics and bias in archaeological interpretation.” In Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, Alison E. Rautman (ed.), 202–214. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Belfer-Cohen, Anna, and Erella Hovers 1992 “In the eye of the beholder: Mousterian and Natufian burials in the Levant.” Current Anthropology 33: 463–471. Bello, Silvia M., Rosalind Wallduck, Simon A. Parfitt, and Chris B. Stringer 2017 “An Upper Palaeolithic engraved human bone associated with ritualistic cannibalism.” PLOS One 12.8: e0182127. Bellwood, Peter 2013 First Migrants: Ancient Migrations in Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Ben-Shlomo, David 2019 “Philistine cult and religion according to archaeological evidence.” Religions 10: doi:10.3390/rel10020074. Ben-Tor, Amnon, and Sharon Zuckerman 2008 “Hazor at the end of the Late Bronze Age: Back to basics.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 350: 1–6. Bergquist, Anders 2001 “Ethics and the archaeology of world religions.” In Archaeology and World Religion, Timothy Insoll (ed.), 182–192. London: Routledge. Bermúdez de Castro, José María, Ignacio Martínez, Ana Gracia-Téllez, María TartinónTorres, and Juan Luis Arsuaga 2021 “The Sima de los Huesos middle Pleistocene hominin site (Burgos, Spain). Estimation of the number of individuals.” American Association for Anatomy 304: 1463–1477. Berndt, Catherine, and Ronald Berndt 1983 The Aboriginal Australians: The First Pioneers. London: Pitman. Bertemes, François, and Peter F. Biehl 2001 “The archaeology of cult and religion: An introduction.” In The Archaeology of Cult and Religion, Peter F. Biehl, François Bertemes, and Harald Meller (eds.), 11–24. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Binford, Lewis R. 1962 “Archaeology as anthropology.” In Contemporary Archaeology, Mark Leone (ed.), 93–101. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. ——— 1965 “Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process.” American Antiquity 31.2: 203–210. ——— 1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. London: Thames and Hudson. Binford, Sally R., and Lewis Binford 1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology. Chicago: Aldine Press. Bird, Michael I., Scott A. Condie, Sue O’Connor, D. O’Grady, Christian Reepmeyer, Sean Ulm, Mojca Zega, Fréderik Saltré, and Corey J. A. Bradshaw 2019 “Early human settlement of Sahul was not an accident.” Scientific Reports 9.8220: doi:10.1038/ s41598-019-42946-9.

382  Bibliography Bishop, Katelyn J., and Samantha Fladd 2018 “Ritual fauna and social organization at Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon.” Kiva: Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History 84.3: 293–316. Bisht, Ravindra S. 2005 “The water structures and engineering of the Harappans at Dholavira (India).” In South Asian Archaeology 2001, Vol. 1, Catherine Jarrige and Vincent Lefevre (eds.), 11–26. Paris: C.N.R.S. Boas, Franz 1920 “The methods of ethnology.” American Anthropologist 22.4: 311–321. Bond, Helen K. 2012 The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury. Borić, Dušan 2014 “Lepenski Vir: Geography and culture.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, Claire Smith (ed.), 4494–4502. New York: Springer. ——— 2016 Deathways at Lepenski Vir: Patterns in Mortuary Practice. Belgrade: Serbian Archaeological Society. ——— 2019 “Lepenski Vir chronology and stratigraphy revisited.” Starinar 69: 9–60. Borić, Dušan, and Sofija Stefanović 2004 “Birth and death: Infant burials from Vlasac and Lepenski Vir.” Antiquity 78.301: 526–546. Bourget, Steve 2001 “Children and ancestors: Ritual practices at the Moche site of Hauca de la Luna, north coast of Peru.” In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru, Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G. Cook (eds.), 93–118. Austin: University of Texas. ——— 2006 Sex, Death, and Sacrifice in Moche Religion and Visual Culture. Austin: University of Texas. ——— 2008 “The third man: Identity and rulership in Moche archaeology and visual culture.” In The Art and Archaeology of the Moche: An Ancient Andean Society of the Peruvian North Coast, Steve Bourget and Kimberly L. Jones (eds.), 263–288. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bowler, James M., Harvey Johnston, Jon M. Olley, John R. Prescott, Richard G. Roberts, Wilfred Shawcross, and Nigel A. Spooner 2003 “New ages for human occupation and climatic change at Lake Mungo, Australia.” Nature 421: 837–840. Boyd, Carolyn E. 1998 “Pictogrpahic evidence of peyotism in the Lower Pecos, Texas Archaic.” In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, Christopher Chippindale and Paul S. C. Taçon (eds.), 229–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Boyer, Pascal 2001 Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books. Bradley, Richar 1998 “Daggers drawn: Depictions of Bronze Age weapons in Atlantic Europe.” In The Archaeology of Rock–Art, Christopher Chippindale and Paul S. C. Taçon (eds.), 130–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Brady, Liam D., and Anneliese Carson 2012 “An archaic face from the Woods Abydos protected reserve, northwestern Western Australia.” Australian Archaeology 74: 98–102. Brami, Maxime, Laura Winkelbach, Ilektra Schulz, Mona Schreiber, Jens Blöcher, Yoan Diekmann, and Joachim Burger 2022 “Was the fishing village of Lepenski Vir built by Europe’s first farmers?” Journal of World Prehistory 35: 109–133. Bray, Tamara L. 2013 “Water, ritual, and power in the Inca Empire.” Latin American Quarterly 24.2: 164–190. Brisch, Nicole 2013 “Of gods and kings: Divine kingship in ancient Mesopotamia.” Religion Compass 7.3: 37–46. ——— 2020 “Ancient Mesopotamian religion.” In A companion to the ancient near east, David C. Snell (ed.), 321–338. Hoboken: Blackwell.

Bibliography 383 Broda, Johanna 1991 “The sacred landscape of Aztec calendar festivals: Myth, nature, and society.” In Aztec Ceremonial Landscapes, Davíd Carrasco (ed.), 74–120. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Bronshtein, Mikhail M., Kirill A. Dneprovsky, and Arkady B. Savinetsky 2016 “Ancient Eskimo cultures of Chukotka.” In The Oxford Handbook of The Prehistoric Arctic, T. Max Friesen and Owen K. Mason (eds.), 469–488. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brothwell, Don 1999 “Human remains.” In The Harmony of Symbols: The Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure, Alasdair Whittle, Joshua Pollard and Caroline Grigson (eds.), 344–346. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Brown, James A. 1997 “The archaeology of ancient religion in the Eastern Woodlands.” Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 465–485. Brown, Michael F. 1989 “Dark side of the shaman.” Natural History (November): 8–10. ——— 2000 “The new age and related forms of contemporary spirituality.” In Religion and Culture: An Anthropological Focus, Raymond Scupin (ed.), 421–432. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bruno, David, Jean-Michel Geneste, Fiona Petchey, Jean-Jacques Delannoy, Bryce Barker, and Mark Eccleston 2013 “How old are Australia’s pictographs? A review of rock art dating.” Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 3–10. Burger, Richard L. 1992 Chavín and the Origins of Andean Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson. ——— 2011 “What kind of hallucinogenic snuff was used at Chavín de Huántar? An iconographic identification.” Nawpa Pacha, Journal of Andean Archaeology 31.2: 123–140. ——— 2019 “Understanding the socioeconomic trajectory of Chavín de Huántar: A new radiocarbon sequence and its wider implications.” Latin American Antiquity: 1–20. Burl, Aubrey 2007 A Brief History of Stonehenge. New York: Carroll and Graf. Butvit, Ian, and Karisa Terry 2016 “Outside Beringia: Why the Northeast Asian Upper paleolithic record does not support a long standstill model.” PaleoAmerica: doi:10.10 80/20555563.2016.1238277. Campbell, Roderick B. 2009 “Toward a networks and boundaries approach to early complex polities: The Late Shang case.” Current Anthropology 50.6: 821–848. Candelora, Danielle 2017 “Defining the Hyksos.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 53: 203–222. Carr, Christopher 2005 “The tripartite ceremonial alliance among Scioto Hopewellian communities and the question of social ranking.” In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case (eds.), 258–338. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Carr, Christopher, and D. Troy Case 2005 “The nature of leadership in Ohio Hopewellian societies: Role segregation and the transformation from Shamanism” In Gathering Hopewell. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case (eds), 177–237. Boston: Springer. Carr, Christopher, and Anna Novotny 2015 “Arrangement of human remains and artifacts in Scioto Hopewell burials: Dramatic rituals or ritual dramas?” In Transforming the Dead: Culturally Modified Bone in the Prehistoric Midwest, Eva A. Hargrave, Shirley J. Schermer, Kristin M. Hedman, Robin M. Lillie, Dathleen T. Blue, and Christopher Carr (eds.), 79–101. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Carrasco, Davíd 1990 Religions of Mesoamerica. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

384  Bibliography ——— 1999 City of Sacrifice: The Aztec Empire and the Role of Violence in Civilization. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ——— 2000 Quetzalcoatl and the Irony of Empire. Rev. ed. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. ——— 2011 The Aztecs: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Castro–Klarén, Sara 2021 “Chavín: How do we understand thee? An inquiry into the jaguar and the San Pedro cactus.” Revista de Estudios Hispánicos 55: 515–535. Cauvin, Jacques 2000 The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ceruti, Maria Constanza 2004 “Human bodies as objects of dedication at Inca mountain shrines (North-Western Argentina).” World Archaeology 36.1: 103–122. ——— 2015 “Frozen mummies from Andean mountaintop shrines: Bioarchaeology and ethnohistory of Inca human sacrifice.” BioMed Research International 2015: 439428. doi.org/10.1155/2015/439428. Challis, William 2005 “ ‘The men with rhebok’s heads; they tame elands and snakes’: Incorporating the rhebok antelope in the understanding of southern African rock art.” South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 9: 11–20. Chang, Kwang-Chih 1974 “Urbanism and the king in ancient China.” World Archaeology 6.1: 1–14. ——— 1986 The Archaeology of Ancient China. New Haven: Yale University Press. ——— 2005 “The rise of kings and the formation of city-states.” In The Formation of Chinese Civilization, an Archaeological Perspective, Sarah Allen (ed.), 125–39. New Haven: Yale University Press. Chapdelaine, Claude 2011 “Recent advances in Moche archaeology.” Journal of Archaeological Research 19: 191–231. Charlesworth, James H. 2006 “Jesus research and archaeology: A  new perspective.” In Jesus and Archaeology, James H. Charlesworth (ed.), 11–63. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Chase, Philip G., and Harold L. Dibble 1987 “Middle Paleolithic symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6: 263–296. Childs-Johnson, Elizabeth 2016 “Urban daemons of early Shang: Urbanism in ancient China.” Archaeological Research in Asia 2016. doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.08.001. ——— 2019 “Metamorphosis and the Shang state: Yi 異 and the Yi ding異 [fang方] 鼎. Religions 10: doi:10.3390/rel10020095. ——— 2020 “Shang belief in art.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early China, Elizabeth Childs–Johnson (ed.), 285–303. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chilton, Bruce 2006 “Recovering Jesus’ Mamzerut.” In Jesus and Archaeology, James H. Charlesworth (ed.), 84–110. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Chippendale, Christopher 2001 “Studying ancient pictures as pictures.” In Handbook of Rock Art Research, David S. Whitley (ed.), 247–272. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Choi, Chungmoo 2003 “The artistry and ritual aesthetics of urban Korean shamans.” In Shamanism, a Reader, Graham Harvey (ed.), 170–185. London: Routledge. Clark, Jorie, Anders F. Carlson, Alberto V. Reyes, and Dylan H. Rood 2022 “The age of the opening of the ice-free corridor and implications for the peopling of the Americas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119.14: e2118558119.

Bibliography 385 Clark, Sharri R. 2009 “Material matters: Representation and materiality of the Harappan body.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16: 231–261. ——— 2016 The Social Lives of Figurines: Recontextualizing the Third-Millennium-BC Terracotta Figurines from Harappa. Papers of the Peabody Museum 86. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Publications. ——— 2018 “Revisiting the ornament styles of the Indus figurines: Evidence from Harappa, Pakistan.” In Walking with the Unicorn: Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume, Dennys Frenez, Gregg M. Jamison, Randall W. Law, Massimo Vidale, and Richard H. Meadow (eds.), 120–149. Oxford: Archaeopress. Clarkson, Chris, Zenobia Jacobs, Ben Marwick, Richard Fullagar, Lynley Wallis, Mike Smith, Richard G. Roberts, Elspeth Hayes, Kelsey Lowe, Xavier Carah, S. Anna Florin1, Jessica McNeil, Delyth Cox, Lee J. Arnold, Quan Hua, Jillian Huntley, Helen E. A. Brand, Tiina Manne, Andrew Fairbairn, Jamie Shulmeister, Lindsey Lyle, Makiah Salinas, and Mara Ppardoe 2017 “Human occupation of Northern Australia by 65,000 years ago.” Nature 547.7663: 306–310. Claw, Katrina G., Dorothy Lippert, Jessica Bardill, Anna Cordova, Keolu Fox, Joseph M. Yracheta, Alyssa, C. Bader, Deborah A. Bolnick, Ripan S. Malhi, Kimperly Tallbear, and A. Garrison Nanibaa 2017 “Chaco Canyon dig unearths ethical concerns.” Human Biology 83.3: 177–180. Clottes, Jean 1998 “The ‘three Cs’: Fresh avenues toward European Palaeolithic art.” In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, Christopher Chippindale and Paul S. C. Taçon (eds.), 112–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University. ——— 2002 World Rock Art. Tr. from the French by Guy Bennett. Los Angeles: Getty. Cole, James 2017 “Assessing the calorific significance of episodes of human cannibalism in the Palaeolithic.” Scientific Reports 7: 44707: doi:10.1038/srep44707. Coltrain, Joan B., and Joel C. Janetski 2019 “Reevaluation of Basketmaker II origins.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56: 101085. Coningham, Robin 2001 “The archaeology of Buddhism.” In Archaeology and World Religion, Timothy Insoll (ed.), 61–95. London: Routledge. ——— 2011 “Buddhism.” In The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology of Ritual & Religion, Timothy Insoll (ed.), 934–947. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coningham, Robin, and Ruth Young 1999 “The archaeological visibility of caste: An introduction.” In Case Studies in Archaeology and World Religion, Bar International Series 755, Timothy Insoll (ed.), 84–93. Oxford: Archaeopress. Conkey, Margaret W. 1989 The structural analysis of Paleolithic art.” In Archaeological Thought in America, C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed.), 135–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— 2001 “Structural and semiotic approaches.” In Handbook of Rock Art Research, David S. Whitley (ed.), 273–310. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Cordy-Collins, Alana 2001 “Blood and the moon priestesses: Spondylus shells in Moche ceremony.” In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru, Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G. Cook (eds.), 35–53. Austin: University of Texas. Covey, R. Alan 2015 “King list.” In Encyclopedia of the Incas, Gary Urton and Adriana Von Hagen (eds.), 172–175. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Cowgill, George L. 2008 “An update on Teotihuacan.” Antiquity 82: 962–975.

386  Bibliography Craffert, Pieter F. 2008 The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological Perspective. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers. Craig, Oliver E., Lisa–Marie Shilito, Umberto Albarella, Sarah Viner-Daniels, Ben Chan, Ros Cleal, Robert Ixer, Mandy Jay, Pete Marshall, Ellen Simmons, Elizabeth Wright, and Mike Parker Pearson 2015 “Feeding Stonehenge: Cuisine and consumption at the late Neolithic site of Durrington walls.” Antiquity 89.347: 1096–1109. Crawford, Ian M. 1968 Art of the Wandjina: Aboriginal Cave Paintings in Kimberley, Western Australia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crosson, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed 2002 Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. New York: HarperCollins. Crown, Patricia L., and W. Jeffrey Hurst 2009 “Evidence of cacao use in the Prehispanic American southwest.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 106.7: 2110–2113. Cummings, Vicki, Peter Jordan, and Marek Zvelebil (eds.) 2014 The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cummings, Vicki, and James Morris 2018 “Neolithic explanations revisited: Modelling the arrival and spread of domesticated cattle into Neolithic Britain.” Environmental Archaeology 23: 1–11. D’Altroy, Terence N. 2002 The Incas. Oxford: Blackwell. ——— 2005 “Remaking the social landscape: Colonization in the Inka Empire.” In The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives, Gil J. Stein (ed.), 263–295. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. ——— 2015a “Kingship, divine.” In Encyclopedia of the Incas, Gary Urton and Adriana Von Hagen (eds.), 175–176. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. ——— 2015b “Funding the Inka Empire.” In The Inka Empire: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Izumi Shimada (ed.), 97–118. Austin: University of Texas Press. Dani, A. H., and B. K. Thapar 1993 “The Indus civilization.” In History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Dawn of Civilization, Earliest Times to 700 B.C., A. H. Dani and M. V. Masson (eds.), 271–307. Paris: United Nations Educational. Danino, Michel 2016 “Aryans and the Indus civilization: Archaeological, skeletal, and molecular evidence.” In A Companion to South Asia in the Past, Gwen R. Schug and Subhash R. Walimbe (eds.), 205–224. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Dark, Kenneth 2015 “Has Jesus’ Nazareth house been found?” Biblical Archaeology Review 41.2: 54–63. Darvill, Thomas 2007 “Towards the within: Stonehenge and its purpose.” In Cult in Context. Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology, David A. Barrowclough and Caroline Malone (eds.), 148–157. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ——— 2016 “Houses of the holy: Architecture and meaning in the structure of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK.” Time and Mind 9.2: 89–121. ——— 2022 “Keeping time at Stonehenge.” Antiquity 96.386: 319–335. Darvill, Timothy, Kerry Barrass, Laura Drysdale, Vanessa Heaslip, and Yvette Staelens (eds.) 2019 Historic Landscapes and Mental Well-Being. Oxford: Archaeopress. Darvrill, Timothy, Peter Marshall, Mike Parker Pearson, and Geoff Wainwright 2012 “Stonehenge remodelled.” Antiquity 86.334: 1021–1040. David, Bruno 2002 Landscapes, Rock-Art and the Dreaming. An Archaeology of Preunderstanding. London: Leicester University.

Bibliography 387 Davis, Wade 1995 “Ethnobotany: An old practice, a new discipline.” In Ethnobotany: Evolution of a Discipline, Richard E. Schultes and Siri von Reis (eds.), 40–51. Portland: Timber Press. de Miroschedji, Pierre 2011 “At the origin of Canaanite cult and religion: The early bronze age fertility ritual in Palestine.” In Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, 74–103. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. de Rojas, José Luis 2012 Tenochtitlan: Capital of the Aztec Empire. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. DeBoer, Warren R. 1997 “Ceremonial centres from the Cayapas (Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothe (Ohio, U.S.A.).” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7: 225–253. Dederen, Jean-Marie, and Jennifer Munyai 2021 “Trivial pursuit? Interpreting San rock art in terms of the mystical bond between hunter and prey.” Pharos Journal of Theology 102: https://doi.org/10.46222/pharosjot.102.18. Dediu, Can, and Stephen C. Levinson 2018 “Neanderthal language revisited: Not only us.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 21: 49–55. Defleur, Alban R., and Emmanuel Desclaux 2019 “Impact of the last interglacial climate change on ecosystems and Neanderthals behavior at Baume Moula-Guercy, Ardéche, France.” Journal of Archaeological Science 104: 114–124. Defleur, Alban R., Tim White, P. Valensi, L. Slimak, and É. Crégut-Bonnoure 1999 “Neanderthal cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Ardeche, France.” Science 286: 128–131. Delaere, Christophe, José M. Capriles, and Charles Stanish 2019 “Underwater ritual offerings in the Island of the Sun and the formation of the Tiwanaku state.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116.17: 8233–8238. Deller, D. Brian, and Christopher J. Ellis 2001 “Evidence for late Paleoindian ritual from the Caradoc site (AfHj–104), southwestern Ontario, Canada.” American Antiquity 66.2: 267. Deller, D. Brian, Christopher J. Ellis, and James R. Keron 2009 “Understanding cache variability: A deliberately burned early Paleoindian tool assemblage from the Crowfield site, southwestern Ontario, Canada.” American Antiquity 74.2: 371–397. Derevianko, Anatoly P., Sergei V. Markin, and Andrei V. Tabarev 2014 “The Palaeolithic of Northern Asia.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers, Vicki Cummings, Peter Jordan, and Marek Zvelebil (eds.), 310– 327. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deshpande, Ashwini 2008 “Caste and diversity in India.” In The Elgar Companion to Social Economics, John B. Davis and Wilfred Dolfsma (eds.), 171–187. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Dever, William G. 2003 Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ——— 2011 “Earliest Israel: God’s warriors, revolting peasants, or nomadic hordes?” In Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, 4–12. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. ——— 2017a “From the Bible to the Levant and beyond.” Near Eastern Archaeology 80.3: 148–165. ——— 2017b Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

388  Bibliography Devlet, Ekaterina 2001 “Rock art and the material culture of Siberian and Central Asian shamanism.” In The Archaeology of Shamanism, Neil Price (ed.), 43–55. London: Routledge. ——— 2018 “Landscape transformation and continuity in shamanic rock art of Northern Asia.” In Lands of the Shamans: Archaeology, Cosmology and Landscape, D. Gheorghiu, G. Nash, H. Bender, and E. Pásztor (eds.), 168–190. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Dibble, Harold L., Vera Aldeias, Paul Goldberg, Shannon P. McPherron, Dennis Sandgathe, and Teresa E. Steele 2015 “A critical look at evidence from La Chapelle-auxSaints supporting an intentional Neandertal burial.” Journal of Archaeological Science 53: 649–657. Dickson, Bruce D. 1990 The Dawn of Belief: Religion in the Upper Paleolithic of Southwestrn Europe. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Diehl, Richard A. 2004 The Olmecs. America’s First Civilization. London: Thames  & Hudson. Dillehay, Tom D., Jack Rossen, Thomas Andres, and David E. Williams 2007 “Preceramic adoption of peanut, squash, and cotton in northern Peru.” Science 316.5833: 1890–1893. Dobson, Jerome E., Giorgio Spada, and Gaia Galassi 2021 “The Bering transitory archipelago: Stepping stones for the first Americans.” Comptes Rendus Géoscience––Sciences de la Planète 353.1: 55–65. Donaldson, Mike 2012 “The Gwion or Bradshaw art style of Australia’s Kimberley region is undoubtedly among the earliest rock art in the country—but is it Pleistocene?” In L’art pléistocéne en Australie, J. Clottes (ed.), 1001–1012. Tarascon-sur-Ariège: Société préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées. Douglas, Mary 1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger. ——— 1973 Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Vintage. Dousset, Laurent 2011 Australian Aboriginal Kinship. Marseille: Pacific-Credo Publications. Dowson, Thomas A. 1998a “Rain in Bushman belief, politics and history: The rock-art of rain-making in the south-eastern mountains, southern Africa.” In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, Christopher Chippindale and Paul S. C. Taçon (eds.), 73–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University. ——— 1998b “Like people in prehistory.” World Archaeology 29.3: 333–343. Driscoll-Engelstad, Bernadette 2005 “Dance of the loon: Symbolism and continuity in copper Inuit ceremonial clothing.” Arctic Anthropology 42.1: 33–46. Durkheim, Emile 1915 The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Oxford New York: Oxford University. Edwards, David N. 2005 “The archaeology of religion.” In The Archaeology of Identity. Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion, Margarity Díaz-Andreu, Sam Lucy, Stasa Babić, and David N. Edwards (ed.), 110–128. London: Routledge. Eisler, Riane 1988 The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. San Francisco: HarperCollins. Elgood, Heather 2004 “Exploring the roots of village Hinduism in South Asia.” World Archaeology 36.3: 326–342. Eliade, Mircea 1964 Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. New York: Pantheon.

Bibliography 389 Elkin, A. P. 1977 Aboriginal Men of High Degree. 2nd ed. St. Lucia: University of Queensland. Ellis, Christopher 2009 “The Crowfield and Caradoc sites, Ontario: Glimpses of PalaeoIndian sacred ritual and world view.” In Painting the Past with a Broad Brush: Papers in Honour of James Valliere Wright, David L. Keenlyside and Jean-Luc Pilon (eds.), 319–352. Ottowa: University of Ottowa Press. Eltsov, Piotr A. 2013 “The ghost of the state in deep antiquity: A closer look at the Harappan civilization from the viewpoint of Sanskrit literature.” In Connections and Complexity: New Approaches to the Archaeology of South Asia, eds. Shinu A. Abraham, Praveena Gullapalli, Teresa P. Raczek, and Uzma Z. Rizvi (eds.), 299–314. London: Routledge. Embree, Ainslie 1988 Sources of Indian Tradition. New York: Columbia University. Emerson, Thomas E. 1997a “Cahokian elite ideology and the Mississippian cosmos.” In Cahokia Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, Timothy R. Pauketat and Thomas E. Emerson (eds.), 190–228. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. ——— 1997b Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama. ———. 2022 “Interpreting context and chronology of Cahokia-Caddo mythic female stone figures.” Southeastern Archaeology 41.4: 203–215. Emerson, Thomas E., and Steven L. Boles 2010 “Contextualizing flint clay Cahokia figures at the East St. Louis Mound Center.” Illinois Archaeology 22.2: 473–490. Emerson, Thomas E., Kenneth B. Farnsworth, Sarah U. Wisseman, and Randall E. Hughs 2013 “The allure of the exotic: Reexamining the use of local and distant pipestone quarries in Ohio Hopewell pipe caches.” American Antiquity 78.1: 48–67. Emerson, Thomas E., Kristin M. Hedman, Eve A. Hargrave, Dawn E. Cobb, and Andrew R. Thompson 2016 “Paradigms lost: Reconfiguring Cahokia’s Mound 72 beaded burial.” American Antiquity 81.3: 405–425. Emerson, Thomas E., Randall E. Hughes, Mary R. Hynes, and Sarah U. Wisseman 2003 “The sourcing and interpretation of Cahokia-style figurines in the Trans-Mississippi south and southeast.” American Antiquity 68.2: 287–313. Emerson, Thomas E., and Timothy R. Pauketat 2008 “Historical-processual archaeology and culture making: Unpacking the Southern Cult and Mississippian religion.” In Belief in the Past. Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion, David S. Whitley and Kelley Hays-Gilpin (eds.), 167–188. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast. Evans, Craig A. 2006 “Excavating Caiaphas, Pilate, and Simone of Cyrene: Assessing the literary and archaeological evidence.” In Jesus and Archaeology, James H. Charlesworth (ed.), 323–340. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Evans, Jean M. 2018 “Religion architecture.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near Eastern Art, Ann C. Gunter (ed.), 456–478. Medford: Blackwell. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1937 Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon. ——— 1940 The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institution of Nilotic People. Oxford: Clarendon. ——— 1956 Nuer Religion. Oxford: Clarendon. ——— 1965 Theories of Primitive Religion. Oxford: Clarendon.

390  Bibliography Fairservis, Walter A. 1995 “Central Asia and the Rgveda: The archaeological evidence.” In The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, George Erdosy (ed.), 206–212. New York: Walter de Gruyter. Farbstein, Rebecca 2011a “Technologies of art: A critical reassessment of Pavlovian art and society, using Chaîne Opératoire method and theory. Current Anthropology 52.3: 401–432. ——— 2011b “The significance of social gestures and technologies of embellishment in Paleolithic portable art.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 18: 125–146. Farnsworth, Kenneth B., Thomas E. Emerson, and Randall E. Hughes 2021 “Havanna tradition platform pipe production and disposition: Implications for interpreting regional variation in Midwestern Hopewell ceremonialism.” American Antiquity 86.4: 696–714. Federova, Natalia 2001 “Shamans, heroes and ancestors in the bronze castings of Western Siberia.” In The Archaeology of Shamanism, Neil Price (ed.), 56–64. London: Routledge. Feinman, Gary M., Kent G. Lightfooy, and Steadman Upham 2000 “Political hierarchies and organizational strategies in the Puebloan Southwest.” American Antiquity 65.3: 449–470. Fewlass, Helen, Sahra Talamo, Bernd Kromer, Deouard Bard, Thibaut tuna, Yoann Fagault, Matt Sponheimer, Christina Ryder, Jean-Jacques Hublin, Angela Perri, Sandra Sázelová, and Jiří Svoboda 2019 “Direct radiocarbon dates of mid Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Dolní Věstonice II and Pavlov I, Czech Republic.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 27: 102000. Field, David, Jim Leary, and Peter Marshall 2014 “Neolithic Silbury in context.” In Silbury Hill: The Largest Prehistoric Mound in Europe, Jim Leary, David Field, and Gill Campbell (eds.), 223–254. Swindon: English Heritage. Finkelstein, Israel 2013 The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Finkelstein, Israel, and Neal Asher Silberman 2001 The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. New York: Simon and Schuster. ——— 2006 David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: Free Press. Finlayson, Clive, Kimberly Brown, Ruth Blasco, Jordi Rosell, Juan José Negro, Gary R. Bortolotti, Geraldine Finlayson, Antonio Sánchez Marco, Francisco Giles Pacheco, Joaquín Rodrı´guez Vidal, Jose´ S. Carrión, Darren A. Fa, and José M. Rodríguez Llanes 2012 “Birds of a feather: Neanderthal exploitation of raptors and corvids.” PLOS One 7.9: e45927: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045927. Firestone, Reuven 1999 Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Firth, Raymond 1996 Religion: A Humanist Interpretation. London: Routledge. Fitzhugh, William W., and Bernadette Driscoll Engelstad 2017 “Inuguat: Prehistoric human figurines in the North American arctic.” In The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, Timothy Insoll (ed.), 367–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flad, Rowan K. 2008 “Divination and power: A multiregional view of the development of oracle bones in early China.” Current Anthropology 49.3: 403–437.

Bibliography 391 Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus 1993 “Cognitive archaeology.” Cambridge Archaeology Journal 3: 260–270. Flint, Peter W. 2013 The Dead Sea Scrolls (Core Biblical Studies). Nashville: Abingdon Press. Flood, Josephine 1983 Archaeology of the Dreamtime. The Story of Prehistoric Australia and Her People. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. ——— 1997 Rock Art of the Dreamtime. Sydney: Angus and Robertson. ——— 2013 “Interpretation of Australian rock art.” Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture 6.1: 59–64. Florin, S. Anna, Andrew S. Fairbairn, May Nango, Djaykuk Djandjomerr, Ben Marwick, Richard Fullagar, Mike Smith, Mike, Lynley A. Wallis, and Chris Clarkson Chris 2020 “The first Australian plant foods at Madjedbebe, 65,000–53,000  years ago.” Nature Communications 11.924: doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14723-0. Fogelin, Lars 2008 “Delegitimizing religion: The archaeology of religion as . . . archaeology.” In Belief in the Past: Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion, David S. Whitley and Kelley Hays-Gilpin (eds.), 129–141. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast. ——— 2015 An Archaeological History of Indian Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Formicola, V., A. Pontrandolfi, and J. Svoboda 2001 “The Upper Paleolithic triple burial of Dolní Vestonice: Pathology and funerary behavior.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 115.4: 372–379. Fraktin, Elliot 2004 “The Laibon diviner and healer among Samburu pastoralists of Kenya.” In Divination and Healing: Potent Vision, Michael Winkelman and Philip M. Peek (eds.), 207–226. Rucson: University of Arizona. Frazer, James 1922 The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. New York: Macmillan. Friesen, Max 2004 “Contemporaneity of Dorset and Thule cultures in the North American Arctic: New radiocarbon dates from Victoria Island, Nunavut.” Current Anthropology 45.5: 685–691. ——— 2020 “Radiocarbon evidence for fourteenth-century Dorset occupation in the eastern North American Arctic.” American Antiquity 85.2: 222–240. Galter, Hannes D. 2015 “The Mesopotamian god Enki/Ea.” Religion Compass 9.3: 66–76. Galvin, John 2005 “Abydos. Life and death at the dawn of Egyptian civilization.” National Geographic 207.4: 106–121. García-Diez, Marcos, Daniel Garrido, Dirk L. Hoffmann, Paul B. Pettitt, Alistair W. G. Pike, and Joao Zilhão 2015 “The chronology of hand stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art: Implications of new U-series results from El Castillo Cave (Cantabria, Spain).” Journal of Anthropological Sciences 93: 135–152. Garfinkel, Alan P. 2006 “Paradigm shifts, rock art studies, and the ‘Coso sheep cult’ of eastern California.” North American Archaeologist 27.3: 203–244. Garfinkel, Alan P., and Donald R. Austin 2011 “Reproductive symbolism in the great basin rock art: Bighorn sheep hunting, fertility and forager ideology.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21.3: 453–471.

392  Bibliography Garfinkel, Yosef, and Madeleine Mumcuoglu 2019 “The temple of Solomon in Iron Age context.” Religions 10: doi:10.3390/rel10030198. Gargett, Robert H. 1989 “Grave shortcomings: The evidence for Neandertal burial.” Current Anthropology 30.2: 157–190. ——— 1999 “Middle Paleolithic burial is not a dead issue: The view from Qafzeh, Saint Césaire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederiyeh.” Journal of Human Evolution 37: 27–90. Gates, Charles 2011 Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece, and Rome. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Geertz, Clifford 1973 The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books. Gerstenberger, E. S. 2019 “Shamanism and healing experts.” Religion and Theology 26(3–4): 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1163/15743012-02603006. Gibson, Jon 2000 The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point: Place of Rings. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Gilbreath, Amy J., and William R. Hildebrandt 2008 “Coso rock art within its archaeological context.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 28.1: 1–22. Gillespie, Jason D. 2007 “Enculturing an unknown world: Caches and Clovis landscape ideology.” Canadian Journal of Archaeology 31.2: 171–189. Gillings, Mark, Joshua Pollard, and Kristian Strutt 2019 “The origins of Avebury.” Antiquity 93(368): 359–377. Gimbutas, Marija 1989 The Language of the Goddess Unearthing the Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization. San Francisco: Harper & Row. ——— 2007 God and Goddesses of Old Europe, 7000–3500 B.C. Updated ed. Berkeley: University of California. Goldhahn, Joakim, Sam Harper, Peter Veth, and Sven Ouzman 2022 “Histories of rock art research in Western Australia’s Kimberley, 1838–2000.” In Histories of Australian Rock Art Research, Paul S. C. Taçon, Sally K. May, Ursula K. Frederick, and Jo McDonald (eds.), 207–234. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Gómez-Olivencia, Asier, Isabelle Crevecoeur, and Antoine Balzeau 2015 “La Ferrassie 8 Neandertal child reloaded: New remains and re-assessment of the original collection.” Journal of Human Evolution 82: 107–126. Grabbe, Lester L. 2017 Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? Rev. ed. London: Bloomsbury. Graulich, Michel 1997 Myths of Ancient Mexico. Translated by B. R. Ortiz de Montellano and T. Ortiz de Montellano. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Graves-Brown, Carolyn 2010 Dancing for Hathor. London: Continuum Books. Grayson, Donald K., and David J. Meltzer 2002 “Clovis hunting and large mammal extinction: A critical review of the evidence.” Journal of World Prehistory 16.4: 313–359. ——— 2015 “Revisiting Paleoindian exploitation of extinct North American mammals.” Journal of Archaeological Science 56: 177–193. Green, Adam S. 2021 “Killing the Priest-King: Addressing egalitarianism in the Indus Civilization.” Journal of Archaeological Research 29: 153–202. Green, Helen, Andrew Gleadow, Damien Finch, Janet Hergt, and Sven Ouzman 2017 “Mineral deposition systems at rock art sites, Kimberley, Northern Australia––Field observations.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14: 340–352. Greener, Aaron 2019 “Archaeology and religion in Late Bronze Age Canaan.” Religions 10: doi:10.3390/rel10040258. Grim, John A. 1983 The Shaman. Patterns of Siberian and Ojibway Healing. Norman: University of Oklahoma.

Bibliography 393 ——— 2003 “Ojibway shamanism.” In Shamanism: A Reader, G. Harvey (ed.), 92–102. London: Routledge. Gunn, Robert 2003 “Arrernte rock-art: Interpreting physical permanence in a changing social landscape.” Australian Aboriginal Studies 1: 52–73. ——— 2018 Art of the Ancestors: Spatial and Temporal Patterning in the Ceiling Rock Art of Nawarla Gabarnmang, Arnhem Land, Australia. Oxford: Archaeopress. Gunn, Robert, David Bruno, Leigh Douglas, Jean-Jacques Delannoy, Sam Harper, Pauline Heaney, Sven Ouzman, and Peter Veth 2019 “ ‘Kimberley Stout Figures’: A new rock art style for Kimberley rock art, North-Western Australia.” Australian Archaeology 85.2: 151–169. Haakanson, Sben Jr., and Amy Steffian 2009 “Giinaquq––like a face.” In Giinaquq: Like a Face: Sugpiaq Masks of the Kodiak Archipelago, Sven Haakanson Jr. and Amy Steffian (eds.), 17–29. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Hall, Robert L. 1977 “An anthropocentric perspective for eastern United States Prehistory.” American Antiquity 42.4: 499–518. ——— 1997 An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. Champaign: University of Illinois. Hallendy, Norman 2001 Inuksuit: Silent Messengers of the Arctic. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre. Hamayon, Roberte N. 2003 “Game and games, fortune and dualism in Siberian shamanism.” In Shamanism, A Reader, Graham Harvey (ed.), 63–68. London: Routledge. Hamilton, Marcus J., and Briggs Buchanan 2010 “Archaeological support for the threestage expansion of modern humans across northeastern Eurasia and into the Americas.” PLOS One 5.8: e12472. Hardy, Karen, Stephen Buckley, and Michael Huffman 2013 “Neanderthal self-medication in context.” Antiquity 87.337: 873–878. Harner, Michael 1968 “The sound of rushing water.” Natural History June/July: 28–33. ——— 1977 “The ecological basis for Aztec sacrifice.” American Ethnologist 4.1: 117–135. ——— 2003 “Discovering the way.” In Shamanism, a Reader, Graham Harvey (ed.), 41–56. London: Routledge. Harper, Sam, Peter Veth, and Sven Ouzman 2020 “Kimberley rock art.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, 2nd ed., Claire Smith (ed.). Cham: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_3449-1. Harris, Marvin 1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. Oxfordshire: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ——— 1974 Cows, Pigs, Wars & Witches: The Riddles of Culture. New York: Random House. ——— 1977 Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. New York: Random House. Harrod, James 2011 “The Hohle Fels female figurine: Not pornography but a representation of the Upper Palaeolithic double goddess.” The Journal of Archaeomythology 7: 1–14. Harvey, Graham 2006 Animism. New York: Columbia University Press. ——— 2014 “Introduction.” In The Handbook of Contemporary Animism, Graham Harvey (ed.), 1–12. London: Routledge. Hayden, Brian 2003 A Prehistory of Religion: Shamans, Sorcerers and Saints. Washington: Smithsonian.

394  Bibliography ——— 2020 “Social inequality in Upper Palaeolithic Europe: Did secret societies create inequalities in the Upper Palaeolithic?” In Social Inequality Before Farming? Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Social Organization in Prehistoric and Ethnographic Hunter-Gatherer-Fisher Societies, Luc Moreau (ed.), 117–130. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Hays-Gilpin, Kelley 2003 Ambiguous Images: Gender and Rock Art. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. He, Nu 2013 “The Longshan period site of Taosi in southern Shanxi province.” In A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, Anne P. Underhill (ed.), 255–277. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Hedman, Kristin M., and Eve A. Hargrave 2018 “The people of Mound 72: Ritual and death, integration and community building at early Cahokia.” In Archaeology and Ancient Religion in the American Midcontinent, Brad H. Koldehoff and Timothy R. Pauketat (eds.), 167–207. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Heinz, Hans-Joachim 1975 “Elements of !ko Bushmen religious beliefs.” Anthropos 70.1/2: 17–41. Heinze, Ruth-Inge 2004 “Divination in multireligious Southeast Asia: The case of Thailand.” In Divination and Healing: Potent Vision, Michael Winkelman and Philip M. Peek (eds.), 167–180. Tucson: University of Arizona. Heitman, Carrie C. 2015 “The house of our ancestors: New research on the prehistory of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, A.D. 800–1200.” In Chaco Revisited: New Research on the Prehistory of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Carrie C. Heitman and Stephen Plog (eds.), 215–248. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Henley, Tracy B., Matt J. Rossano, and Edward P. Kardas (eds.) 2019 Handbook of Cognitive Archaeology. New York: Routledge. Henry, Edward R., and Casey R. Barrier 2016 “The organization of dissonance in AdenaHopewell societies of eastern North America.” World Archaeology 48.1: 87–109. Hiscock, Peter 2014 “The human colonization of Australia.” In The Global Prehistory of Human Migration, Peter Bellwood (ed.), 176–188. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Hitchcock, John T. 2001 “Remarkably good theater.” In Shamans Through Time. 500 Years on the Path to Knowledge, Jeremy Narby and Francis Huxley (eds.), 200–206. New York: Tarcher/Penguin. Hitchcock, Robert D., and Thomas Koperski 2008 “Genocides of indigenous peoples.” In The Historiography of Genocide, Dan Stone (ed.). London: Palgrave. https://doi. org/10.1057/9780230297784_23. Hitchcock, Robert D., and Alan J. Osborn (eds.) 2002 Endangered Peoples of Africa and the Middle East: Struggles to Survive and Thrive. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Hitchcock, Robert K. 2019 “The evolution of hunter-gatherer religion: Issues and debates among the San of Southern Africa.” In The Evolution of Religion, Religiosity and Theology: A Multi-Level and Multi-Disciplinary Approach, Jay R. Feierman and Lluis Oviedo (eds.), 239–255. London: Routledge. Hitchcock, Robert K., Nicholas Winer, and Melinda C. Kelly 2020 “Hunter-gatherers, farmers, and environmental degradation in Botswana.” Conservation and Society 18.3: 226–237. Hively, Ray, and Robert Horn 1984 “Hopewellian geometry and astronomy at High Bank.” Astroarchaeology 7: S85–100.

Bibliography 395 Hodder, Ian 1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. ——— 1990 The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell. Hodder, Ian, and Nazlı Gürlek 2020 “Creativity and innovation in the geometric wall paintings at Çatalhöyük.” In Consciousness, Creativity, and Self at the Dawn of Settled Life, Ian Hodder (ed.), 190–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, Ian, and Lynn Meskell 2010 “The symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its regional context.” In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization, Ian Hodder (ed.), 32–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howells, William W. 1948 The Heathens, Primitive Man and His Religions. Garden City: Doubleday. Hu, Anning 2016 “Ancestor worship in contemporary China: An empirical investigation.” The China Review 16.1: 169–186. Hu, Anning, and Felicia F. Tian 2018 “Still under the ancestors’ shadow? Ancestor worship and family formation in contemporary China.” Demographic Research 38.1: 1–36. Hutton, Ronald 2001 Shamans. Siberian Spirituality and the Western Imagination. London: Hambledon & London. Ibrahim, Mahmood 1982 “Social and economic conditions in Pre-Islamic Mecca.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 14.3: 343–358. Ingham, John M. 1984 “Human sacrifice at Tenochtitlan.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 26.3: 379–400. Ingold, Tim 2006 “Rethinking the animate, a re-animating thought.” Ethnos 71.1: 9–20. Insoll, Timothy (ed.) 1999 Case Studies in Archaeology and World Religion. Bar International Series 755. Oxford: Archaeopress. ——— 2001 “Introduction: The archaeology of world religion.” In Archaeology and World Religion, Timothy Insoll (ed.), 1–32. London: Routledge. ——— 2004 Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. New York: Routledge. ——— 2011 “Animism and totemism.” In Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, T. Insoll (ed.), 1004–1016. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jacobsen, David M. 2012 “Editorial: ‘Mariam Daughter of Yeshua, Son of Caiaphas, Priest of Ma’Aziah from Beth Imri’.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 144.1: 1–4. Jaffe, Yitzchak 2013 “Materializing identity––a statistical analysis of the Western Zhou Liulihe cemetery.” Asian Perspectives 51.1: 47–67. Janusek, John W. 2006 “The changing ‘nature’ of Tiwanaku religion and the rise of an Andean state.” World Archaeology 38.3: 469–492. Jaubert, Jacques, Sophie Verheyden, Dominique Genty, Michael Soulier, Hai Cheng, Dominique Blamart, Christian Burlet, Hubert Camus, Serge Delaby, Damien Deldicque, R. Lawrence Edwards, Catherine Ferrier, François Lacrampe-Cuiaubére, François Lévêque, Frédéric Maksud, Pascal Mora, Xavier Muth, Édouard Régnier, Jean-Noël Rouzaud, and Frédéric Santos 2016 “Early Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in Southwestern France.” Nature 534: 111–114. Jennings, Thomas A., Ashley M. Smallwood, and Charlotte D. Pevny 2020 “Early ritual in the American southeast: Evidence from the Paleoindian period.” In Shaman, Priest, Practice, Belief: Materials of Ritual and Religion in Eastern North America, Stephen B. Carmody and Casey R. Barrier (eds.), 13–27. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

396  Bibliography Jodry, Margaret A., and Douglas W. Owsley 2014 “A new look at the double burial from Horn Shelter No. 2.” In Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton, Douglas W. Owsley and Richard L. Jantz (eds.), 549–604. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Johnson, David, Donald Pourlx, and Stephen B. Mabee 2002 “The correlation between geoglyphs and subterranean water resources in the Rio Grande de Nasca drainage.” In Andean Archaeology II—Art, Landscape and Society, Helaine Silverman and William H. Isbell (eds.), 307–332. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. Johnson, Paul C. 2003 “Shamanism from Ecuador to Chicago. A case study in new age ritual appropriation.” In Shamanism, A Reader, Graham Harvey (ed.), 334–354. London: Routledge. Jones, Andrew 2001 Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Jones, Dan 2008 “New Light on Stonehenge.” Smithsonian 39.7: 36–46. Joralemon, Peter D. 1976 “The Olmec Dragon: A study in Pre-Columbian iconography.” In Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica, H. B. Nicholson (ed.), 27–71. Los Angeles: Ethnic Arts Council of Los Angeles. Kabukcu, Ceren, Chris Hunt, Evan Hill, Emma Pomeroy, Tim Reynolds, Graeme Barker, and Eleni Asouti 2022 “Cooking in caves: Palaeolithic carbonised plant food remains from Franchthi and Shanidar.” Antiquity 2022: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.15184/ aqy.2022.143. Kantner, John 2004 Ancient Puebloan Southwest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kantner, John, and Kevin J. Vaughn 2012 “Pilgrimage as costly signal: Religiously motivated cooperation in Chaco and Nasca.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31: 66–82. Katz, Richard 1982 Boiling Energy: Community Healing Among the!Kung. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kehoe, Alice Beck 1989 The Ghost Dance: Ethnohistory and Revitalization. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ——— 2000 Shamans and Religion. An Anthropological Exploration in Critical Thinking. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Keightley, David N. 1978 Sources of Shang History: The Oracle-Bone Inscriptions of Bronze Age China. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——— 1988 “Shang divination and metaphysics.” Philosophy East and West 38: 367–97. ——— 2014 “The religious commitment: Shang theology and the genesis of Chinese political culture.” In These Bones Shall Rise Again, Henry Rosemont Jr. (ed.), 87–99. Albany: SUNY Press. Kelly, Robert L., and Lawrence C. Todd 1988 “Coming into the country: Early Paleoindian hunting and mobility.” American Antiquity 53.2: 231–244. Kembel, Silvia Rodriguez 2008 “The architecture at the monumental center of Chavín de Huántar: Sequence, transformations, and chronology.” In Chavín: Art, Architecture, and Culture, William J. Conklin and Jeffrey Quilter (eds.), 35–81. Los Angeles: Costen Institute of Archaeology Press.

Bibliography 397 Kembel, Silvia Rodriguez, and John W. Rick 2004 “Building authority at Chavín de Huántar.” In Andean Archaeology, Helaine Silverman (ed.), 51–75. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Kemp, Barry J. 2006 Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilization. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Kendall, Laurel 1985 Shamans, Housewives and Other Restless Spirits: Women in Korean Ritual Life. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Kennedy, Kenneth A. R. 1995 “Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia? Biological anthropology and concepts of ancient races.” In The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, George Erdosy (ed.), 32–66. New York: Walter de Gruyter. Kennett, Douglas J., Stephen Plog, Richard J. George, Brendan J. Culleton, Adam S. Watson, Pontus Skoglund, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Kristin Stewardson, Logan Kistler, Steven A. LeBlanc, Peter M. Whiteley, David Reich, and George H. Perry 2017 “Archaeogenomic evidence reveals prehistoric matrilineal dynasty.” Nature Communications 8: 14115. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14115. Kenoussi, Lamia 2020 “Nabataean religion and its pantheon through Pre-Islamic and early Islam sources: al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt.” Jordan Journal for History and Archaeology 14.4: 273–299. Kenoyer, Jonathon M. 1995 “Interaction systems, specialized crafts and culture change: The Indus Valley tradition and the Indo-Gangetic tradition in South Asia.” In The IndoAryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, George Erdosy (ed.), 213–57. New York: Walter de Gruyter. ——— 1998 Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi: Oxford University. ——— 2010 “Master of animals and animal masters in the iconography of the Indus tradition.” In The Master of Animals in Old World Iconography, Derek B. Counts and Bettina Arnold (eds.), 37–58. Budapest: Archaeolingua. ——— 2013 “Iconography of the Indus unicorn: Origins and legacy.” In Connections and Complexity: New Approaches to the Archaeology of South Asia, Shinu A. Abraham, Praveena Gullapalli, Teresa P. Raczek, and Uzma Z. Rizvi (eds.), 107–125. London: Routledge. ——— 2014 “The Indus Civilisation.” In The Cambridge World Prehistory, Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn (eds), 407–432. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kent, Sue 1992 “The current forager controversy: Real versus ideal views of huntergatherers.” Man 27: 45–70. Kilby, J. David, and Bruce B. Huckell 2014 “Clovis caches: Current perspectives and future directions.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey, Kelly E. Graf, Caroline V. Ketron, and Michael R. Waters (eds.), 257–272. College Station: Texas A&M University. Killebrew, Ann E. 2006 “The emergence of ancient Israel: The social boundaries of a ‘mixed multitude’ in Canaan.” In I Will ‘Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Aren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji (eds.), 555–572. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Killebrew, Ann E., and Gunnar Lehmann (eds.) 2012 The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Killion, Thomas W. 2013 “Nonagricultural cultivation and social complexity: The Olmec, their ancestors, and Mexico’s southern Gulf Coast Lowlands.” Current Anthropology 54.5: 569–606.

398  Bibliography Kim, Seung–Og 1994 “Burials, pigs, and political prestige in Neolithic China.” Current Anthropology 35.2: 119–141. Klassen, Michael A. 1998 “Icon and narrative in transition: Contact-period rock-art at Writing-On-Stone, southern Alberta, Canada.” In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, Christopher Chippindale and Paul S. C. Taçon (eds.), 42–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knudson, Kelly J., Sloan R. Williams, Rebecca Osborn, Kathleen Forgey, and Patrick Ryan Williams 2009 “The geographic origins of Nasca trophy heads using strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotope data.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28.2: 244–257. Koehler, E. Christiana 2010 “Prehistory.” In A Companion to Ancient Egypt Volume I, Alan B. Lloyd (ed.), 25–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Koch, Harold 2007 “An overview of Australian traditional languages.” In The Habitat of Australia’s Aboriginal Languages: Past, Present and Future, Gerhard Leitner and Ian G. Malcolm (eds.), 23–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Koch, Ido 2020 “On Philistines and early Israelite Kings: Memories and perceptions.” In Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of Monarchy in Israel: Biblical and Archaeological Perspectives, Joachim J. Krause, Omer Sergi, and Kristin Weingart (eds.), 7–31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Kolar, Miriam A. 2017 “Sensing sonically at Andean formative Chavín de Huántar, Perú.” Time and Mind 10: 39–59. Konstantopoulos, Gina 2019 “Deities, demons, and monsters in Mesopotamia.” In Ancient Mesopotamia Apeaks: Highlights of the Yale Babylonian Collection, Agnete W. Lassen, Eckart Frahm, and Klaus Wagensonner (eds.), 44–56. New Haven: Yale University Press. Koons, Michele L. 2014 “Revised Moche chronology based on Bayesian models of reliable radiocarbon dates.” Radiocarbon 56.3: 1039–1055. Kramer, Carol (ed.) 1979 Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology. New York: Columbia University Press. Kuraskiewicz, Kamil O. 2022 “Long live the step Pyramid!” Heritage 5: 2615–2627. Lahiri, Nayanjot, and Elisabeth A. Bacus 2004 “Exploring the archaeology of Hinduism.” World Archaeology 36.3: 313–325. Lalueza-Fox, Carles, Antonio Rosas, Almudena Esalrrich, and Marco de la Rasilla 2010 “Genetic evidence for patrilocal mating behavior among Neandertal groups.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108.1: 250–253. Lawlor, Robert 1991 Voices of the first day. Awakening in the Aboriginal Dreamtime. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions. Layton, Robert 1992 Australian Rock Art. A New Synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University. ——— 2001 “Ethnographic study and symbolic analysis.” In Handbook of Rock Art Research, David S. Whitley (ed.), 311–331. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Lázničková-Galetová, Martina 2019 “The symbolism of breast-shaped beads from Dolní Věstonice I (Moravavia, Czech Republic).” Quaternary International 503: 221–232. Lbova, Liudmila 2021 “Personal ornaments as markers of social behavior, technological development and cultural phenomena in the Siberian Early Upper Paleolithic.” Quaternary International 573: 4–13.

Bibliography 399 Le Quellec, Jean-Loïc 2018 “The rock art of Sub-Saharan Africa.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeoology and Anthropology of Rock Art, Bruno David and Ian J. McNiven (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: doi:10.1093/oxfor dhb/9780190607357.013.51. Leaf, Murry J. 2014 The Anthropology of Eastern Religions: Ideas, Organizations, and Constituencies. Lanham: Lexington Books. Leary, Jim, Matthew Canti, David Field, Peter Fowler, Peter Marshall, and Gill Campbell 2013 “The Marlborough Mound, Wiltshire. A further Neolithic monumental mound by the River Kennet.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79: 1–27. Leary, Jim, Timothy Darvill, and David Field (eds.) 2011 Round Mounds and Monumentality in the British Neolithic and Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Lee, Richard B. 1984 The Dobe!Kung. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lee, Yun Kuen 2004 “Control strategies and polity competition in the Lower Yi-Luo Valley, north China.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 172–195. ——— 2007 “Centripetal settlement and segmentary social formation of the Banpo tradition.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 630–675. Lee, Yun Kuen, and Naicheng Zhu 2002 “Social integration of religion and ritual in prehistoric China.” Antiquity 76.293: 715–723. Lehner, Mark 2006 Giza Reports. The Giza Plateau Mapping Project. Brighton, MA: Ancient Egypt Research Associates. ——— 2019 “Neighborhood to national network: Pyramid settlements of Giza.” Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 30: 20–38. Lekson, Stephen H. 1999 The Chaco Meridian: Centers of Political Power in the Ancient Southwest. Walnut Creek: AltaMira. ——— 2004 “Architecture: The central matter of Chaco Canyon.” In Search of Chaco: New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, David G. Noble (ed.), 23–32. Santa Fe: School of American Research. ——— 2006 “Lords of the great house: Pueblo Bonito as a palace.” In Palaces and Power in the Americas, Jessica J. Christie and Patricia J. Sarro (eds.), 99–114. Austin: University of Texas Press. Lepper, Bradley T. 2020 “The Mississippian iconography of serpent mound.” Journal of Ohio Archaeology 7: 38–55. Lepper, Bradley T., James R. Duncan, Carol Diaz-Granádos, and Tod A. Frolking 2018 “Arguments for the age of serpent mound.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 28.3: 433–450. Lepper, Bradley T., Tod A. Frolking, and William H. Pickard 2019 “Debating the age of serpent mound.” Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 44.1: 42–56. Leroi-Gourhan, Andre 1965 Treasures of Prehistoric Art. New York: Harry Abrams. Lévi-Strauss, Claude 1963 Structural Anthropology. Harmondsworth: Penguin. ——— 1966 The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ——— 1969 The Raw and the Cooked. Volume 1 of Introduction to a Science of Mythology. New York: Harper & Row. Lewis, I. M. 2003 Ecstatic Religion. A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Lewis-Williams, David J. 1981 Believing and Seeing: Symbolic Meanings in Southern San Rock Paintings. New York: Academic.

400  Bibliography ——— 2001 “Southern African shamanistic rock art in its social and cognitive contexts.” In The Archaeology of Shamanism, Neil Price (ed.), 17–39. London: Routledge. ——— 2002 The Mind in the Cave. London: Thames and Hudson. ——— 2006 “The evolution of theory, method, and technique in Southern African rock art research.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13 (4): 343–377. ——— 2008 “Religion and archaeology: An analytical materialist account.” In Belief in the Past. Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion, David S. Whitley and Kelley Hays-Gilpin (eds.), 23–42. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast. Lewis-Williams, David J., and Thomas Dowson 1988 “The signs of all times: Entoptic phenomena and Upper Palaeolithic art.” Current Anthropology 29: 201–245. Lewis-Williams, David J., and David G. Pearce 2012 “The southern San and the trance dance: A  pivotal debate in the interpretation of San rock paintings.” Antiquity 86.333: 696–706. ——— 2015 “San rock art: Evidence and argument.” Antiquity 89.345: 732–739. Li, Feng 2003 “ ‘Feudalism’ and Western Zhou China: A criticism.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 63.1: 115–144. Lindstedt, Likka 2018 “Early Muslims, Pre-Islamic Arabia, and ‘pagans’.” In Handbook on Early Islam, Herbert Berg (ed.), 159–176. Abingdon: Routledge. Liu, Li 2000 “Ancestor worship: An archaeological investigation of ritual activities in Neolithic north China.” Journal of East Asian Archaeology 1.1–2: 129–64. ——— 2009 “State emergence in early China.” Annual Review of Anthropology 38: 217–232. ——— 2021 “Communal drinking rituals and social formations in the Yellow River valley of Neolithic China.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63: e101310. Liu, Li, and Xingcan Chen 2003 State Formation in Early China. London: Duckworth. ——— 2012 The Archaeology of China. From the Late Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liu, Li, and Hong Xu 2007 “Rethinking Erlitou: Legend, history and Chinese archaeology.” Antiquity 81: 886–901. Lovis, William A., and Robert Whallon (eds.) 2016 Marking the Land: Hunter-Gatherer Creation of Meaning in their Environment. London: Routledge. Lu, Liancheng, and Wenming Yan 2005 “Society during the three dynasties.” In The Formation of Chinese Civilization, An Archaeological Perspective, Sarah Allen (ed.), 141–201. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lun, Du 2017 “The Early Zhou period: Origin of the idea of political legitimacy and the political philosophy of Confucianism.” Asian Studies 5.1: 67–80. Lynott, Mark 2015 Hopewell Ceremonial Landscapes of Ohio: More than Mounds and Geometric Earthworks. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Magli, Guilio 2013 Architecture, Astronomy and Sacred Landscape in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Magness, Jodi 2002 The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ——— 2012 The Archaeology of the Holy Land: From the destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malinowski, Bronislaw 1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesia New Guinea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bibliography 401 ——— 1925 [1954] Magic, Science and Religion: And Other Essays. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Mallory, J. P. 1989 In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames and Hudson. Malville, J. McKim 2004 “Sacred time in Chaco Canyon and beyond.” In Search of Chaco: New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, David G. Noble (ed.), 87–92. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Manzanilla, Linda R. 2015 “Cooperation and tensions in multiethnic corporate societies using Teotihuacan, central Mexico, as a case study.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112.30: 9210–9215. Marshack, Alexander 1972 The Roots of Civilization. The Cognitive Beginnings of Man’s First Art, Symbol and Notation. New York: McGraw-Hill. ––––– 1995 “Images of the ice age.” Archaeology July/August: 28–39. Marti, Africa Pitarch, João Zilhão, Francesco d’Errico, Pedro Cantalejo-Duarte, Salvador Domínguez-Bella, Josep M. Fullola, Gerd C. Weniger, and José Ramos-Muñoz 2020 “The symbolic role of the underground world among Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118.33: e2021495118 https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021495118. Martinez, Florentino Garcia 2000 “The great battles over Qumran.” Near Eastern Archaeology 63.3: 124–130. Mason, Owen K. 2009 “Mask affinities.” In The Archaeology of Deering, Alaska: Final Report on the Safe Water Archaeological Project, William W. Fitzhugh, Julie Hollowell, and Aron Crowell (eds.), 112–125. New Haven: Yale University Press. ——— 2014 “The Ipiutak cult of shamans and Its warrior protectors: An archaeological context.” In The Foragers of Point Hope: The Biology and Archaeology of Humans on the Edge of the Alaskan Arctic, Charles E. Hilton, Benjamin M. Auerbach, and Libby W. Cowgill (eds.), 35–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— 2016a “Thule origins in the Old Bering Sea culture: The interrelationship of Punuk and Birnirk cultures.” In The Oxford Handbook of The Prehistoric Arctic, T. Max Friesen and Owen K. Mason (eds.), 489–512. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— 2016b “The old Bering Sea florescence about Bering Strait.” In The Oxford Handbook of The Prehistoric Arctic, T. Max Friesen and Owen K. Mason (eds.), 417–442. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— 2020 “The Thule migrations as an analog for the early peopling of the Americas: Evaluating scenarios of overkill, trade, climate forcing, and scalar stress.” PaleoAmerica: doi:10.1080/20555563.2020.1783969. Matthews, Roger 2003 The Archaeology of Mesopotamia: Theories and Approaches. London: Routledge. Maurielle, Bruno 2022 “The earliest European burials.” In The Routledge Handbook of Archaeothanatology: Bioarchaeology of Mortuary Behaviour, Christopher J. Knüsel and Eline M. J. Schotsmans (eds.), 140–158. New York: Routledge. Mazar, Amihai 2010 “Archaeology and the biblical narrative: The case of the United Monarchy.” In One God –– One Cult –– One Nation, Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann (eds.), 29–58. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. McCall, Henrietta 1990 Mesopotamian Myths. Austin: University of Texas. McCauley, Brea, David Maxwell, and Mark Collard 2018 “A cross-cultural perspective on Upper Palaeolithic hand images with missing phalanges.” Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology 1: 314–333.

402  Bibliography McCoid, Catherine H., and LeRoy D. McDermott 1996 “Decolonizing gender: Female vision in the Upper Paleolithic. American Anthropologist, New Series 98(2): 319–326. McConvell, Patrick, Piers Kelly, and Sebastien Lacrampe (eds.) 2018 Skin, Kin and Clan: The Dynamics of Social Categories in Indigenous Australia. Acton: Australian National University. McDermott, Le Roy 1996 “Self-representation in upper Paleolithic female figurines.” Current Anthropology 37: 227–275. McDonald, Jo 2005 “Archaic faces to headdresses: The changing role of rock art across the arid zone.” In Desert Peoples: Archaeological Perspectives, Peter M. Veth, Mike Smith, and Peter Hiscock (eds.), 1116–1141. Oxford: Blackwell. McDonald, Jo, and Peter Veth 2012 “Western Desert iconography: Rock art mythological narratives and graphic vocabularies.” Diogenes 58.3: 7–21. ——— 2013 “Rock art in arid landscapes: Pilbara and Western Desert petroglyphs.” Australian Archaeology 77: 66–81. McGranaghan, Mark, and Sam Challis 2016 “Reconfiguring hunting magic: Southern Bushman (San) perspectives on taming and their implications for understanding rock art.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26.4: 579–599. McIntosh, Jane R. 2008 The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives. Santa Barbara: ABC/Clio. McNiven, Ian J. 2016 “Theoretical challenges of indigenous archaeology: Setting the agenda.” American Antiquity 81.1: 27–41. Mehrer, Mark W. 1995 Cahokia’s Countryside. Household Archaeology, Settlement Patterns, and Social Power. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University. Mellaart, James 1967 Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson. Meltzer, David J. 2009 First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mercer, Roger, and Frances Healy 2008 Hambleton Hill Dorset, England: Excavation and Survey of a Neolithic Monument Complex and Its Surrounding Landscape. Swindon: English Heritage. Merkur, Daniel 1983 “Breath-soul and wind owner: The many and the one in Inuit religion.” American Indian Quarterly 7.3: 23–39. ——— 2014 Becoming Half Hidden: Shamanism and Initiation among the Inuit. New York: Routledge. Merlini, Marco 2021 “Prehistoric double goddesses giving birth.” Archaeologie-Istorie 39: 49–70. Meskell, Lynn 2017 “The archaeology of figurines and the human body in prehistory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, Timothy Insoll (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.013.002. Meyers, Eric M., and Mark A. Chancey 2012 Alexander to Constantine: Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume III. Yale: Yale University Press. Middleton, Emily S., Geoffrey M. Smith, William J. Cannon, Mary F. Ricks 2014 “Paleoindian rock art: Establishing the antiquity of Great Basin carved abstract petroglyphs in the northern Great Basin.” Journal of Archaeological Science 43: 21–30. Miller, Robert D. II 2011 “Shamanism in early Israel.” Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morganlandes 101: 309–341.

Bibliography 403 Mills, Barbara J. 2018 “What’s new in Chaco research.” Antiquity 92.364: 855–869. Milne, S. Brooke, and Robert Park 2016 “Pre-Dorset culture.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic, Max Friesen and Owen Mason (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199766956.013.39 Milner, George R. 1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom. The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. ——— 2005 The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America. London: Thames and Hudson. Mitchell, William E. 1987 The Bamboo Fire: Field Work with the New Guinea Wape. 2nd ed. Prospect Heights: Waveland. Mittnik, Alissa, Chuan-Chao Wang, Jiří Svoboda, and Johannes Krause 2016 “A molecular approach to the sexing of the triple burial at the Upper Paleolithic site of Dolní Věstonice.” PLoS One 11.10: e0163019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0163019. Monroe, Lauren, and Daniel E. Fleming 2019 “Earliest Israel in highland company.” Near Eastern Archaeology 82.1: 16–23. Monroe, M. Willis 2019 “Mesopotamian astrology.” Religion Compass 13: e12318. Moreman, Christopher M. 2016 “Rehabilitating the spirituality of Pre-Islamic Arabia: On the importance of the Kahin, the Jinn, and the Tribal Ancestral Cult.” Journal of Religions History 41.2: 127–157. Moreno-Mayar, J. Victor, Peter de Barros-Damgaard, Constanza de la Fuente, Jeffrey Chan, Jeffrey P. Spence, et  al. 2018 “Early human dispersals within the Americas.” Science 362: 6419: doi:10.1126/science.aav2621. Morgan, Lewis Henry 1877 [2000]. Ancient Society. New Brunswick: Transaction. Morris, Brian 2006 Religion and Anthropology: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Morriss-Kay, Gillian 2012 “A  new hypothesis on the creation of the Hohle Fels ‘Venus’ Figurine.” In L’art pléistocène dans le monde/Pleistocene art of the world, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, J. Clottes (ed.), 1589–1595, LXV–LXVI. Tarascon-sur-Ariége: Société Préhistorique Ariége-Pyrénées. Morwood, M. J. 2002 Visions from the Past. The Archaeology of Australian Aboriginal Art. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Moseley, Michael E. 2001 The Incas and Their Ancestors: The Archaeology of Peru. Rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Mountford, Charles P.  1960 “Simple rock engravings in Central Australia.” Man 60: 145–147. Mulvaney, Ken 2013 “Iconic imagery: Pleistocene rock art development across northern Australia.” Quarternary International 285: 99–110. Mussi, Margherita 2015 “Encoding and decoding the message: The case of the Mid Upper Palaeolithic female imagery.” In Settlement, Society and Cognition in Human Evolution: Landscapes in Mind, Fiona Coward, Robert Hosfield, Matt Pope, and Francis Wenban-Smith (eds.), 275–287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mykailova, Nataliia 2019 “ ‘Shaman’ Burials in Prehistoric Europe. Gendered Images?” In Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic societies, Julia Katharina Koch and Wiebke Kirleis (eds.), 342–362. Leiden: Sidestone Press.

404  Bibliography Narby, Jeremy 2001 “The understanding deepens.” In Shamans Through Time. 500 Years on the Path to Knowledge, Jeremy Narby and Francis Huxley (eds.), 75–78. New York: Tarcher/Penguin. Narby, Jeremy, and Francis Huxley (eds.) 2001 Shamans Through Time. 500 Years on the Path to Knowledge. New York: Tarcher/Penguin. Nash, David J., T. Jake, R. Ciborowski, J. Stewart Ullyott, M. Parker Pearson, T. Darvill, S. Greaney, G. Maniatis, and K. A. Whitaker 2020 “Origins of the Sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge.” Science Advances 6: eabc0133. Neil, Samantha, Jane Evans, Janet Montgomery, and Chris Scarre 2018 “Isotopic evidence for landscape use and the role of causewayed enclosures during the earlier Neolithic in southern Britain.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 84: 185–205. Nell, Erin, and Clive Ruggles 2014 “The orientations of the Giza pyramids and associated structures.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 45.3: 304–360. Nelson, Sarah 2001 “Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic ‘Venus’ figurines and archaeological mythology.” In Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 3rd ed., Caroline B. Brettell and Carolyn F. Sargent (eds.), 82–89. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. ——— 2003 “Feasting the ancestors in early China.” In The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, T. L. Bray (ed.), 65–89. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Nichols, Deborah L. 2016 “Teotihuacan.” Journal of Archaeological Research 24: doi:10.1007/s10814-015-9085-0. Nickel, Lukas 2011 “The prehistory of religion in China.” In The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, Timothy Insoll (ed.), 442–456. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 2003 Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins. Minneapolis: Fortress. Nowell, April, and Melanie L. Chang 2014 “Science, the media, and interpretations of Upper Paleolithic figurines.” American Anthropologist 116.3: 562–577. Nowell, April, and Jennifer C. French 2020 “Adolescence and innovation in the European Upper Palaeolithic.” Evolutionary Human Sciences 2: doi:10.1017/ehs.2020.37. O’Connell, James F., Jim Allen, Martin A. J. Williams, Alan N. Williams, Chris S. M. Turneey, Nigel A. Spooner, Johan Kamminga, Graham Brown, and Alan Cooper 2018 “When did Homo sapiens first reach southeast Asia and Sahul?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115.34: 8482–8490. Oosten, Jarich 1992 “Representing the spirits: The masks of the Alaskan Inuit.” In Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics, J. Coote and A. Shelton (eds.), 113–135. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oosten, Jarich, and Frédéric Laugrand 2009 “Representing the ‘Sea Woman’.” Religion and the Arts 13: 477–495. Orschiedt, Jörg 2018 “The late Upper Palaeolithic and earliest Mesolithic evidence of burials in Europe.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 373. https:// royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2017.0264. Ortiz de Montellano, Bernard R. 1978 “Aztec cannibalism: An ecological necessity?” Science 200.4342: 611–617. Ortmann, Anthony L. 2010 “Placing the Poverty Point mounds in their temporal context.” American Antiquity 75.3: 657–678.

Bibliography 405 Ortmann, Anthony L., and Tristram R. Kidder 2013 “Building mound A at poverty point, Louisiana: Monumental public architecture, ritual practice, and implications for huntergatherer complexity.” Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 28: 66–86. O’Shea, John M. 1984 Mortuary Variability. An Archaeological Investigation. London: Academic. Otto, Adelheid 2018 “Glyptic.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near Eastern Art, Ann C. Gunter (ed.), 436–455. Medford: Blackwell. Overmann, Karenleigh A. 2014 “Finger-counting in the Upper Palaeolithic.” Rock Art Research 3.1: 63–80. Park, Robert, and S. Brooke Milne 2016 “Pre-Dorset culture.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic, M. Friesen and O. Mason (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199766956.013.39. Park, Song-Mi Suzie 2016 “Israel in its neighboring context.” In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Ancient Israel, Susan Niditch (ed.), 47–65. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Parker Pearson, Mike 2013 “Researching Stonehenge: Theories past and present.” Archaeology International 16: 72–83. Parker Pearson, Mike, Richard Bevins, Rob Ixer, Joshua Pollard, Colin Richards, Kate Welham, Ben Chan, Kevan Edinborough, Derek Hamilton, Richard Macphail, Duncan Schlee, Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Ellen Simmons, and Martin Smith 2015 Craig Rhos-yFelin: A Welsh bluestone Megalith quarry for Stonehenge.” Antiquity 89.348: 1331–1352. Parker Pearson, Mike, Ros Cleal, Josh Pollard, Colin Richards, Julian Thomas, Chris Tilley, Kate Welham, Andrew Chamberlain, Carolyn Chenery, Jane Evans, Janet Montgomery, and Mike Richards 2007 “The age of Stonehenge.” Antiquity 81.313: 617–639. Parker Pearson, Mike, Josh Pollard, Colin Richards, Kate Welham, Timothy Kinnaird, Dave Shaw, Ellen Simmons, Adam Stanford, Richard Bevins, Rob Ixer, Clive Ruggles, Jim Rylatt, and Kevan Edinborough 2021 “The original Stonehenge? A  dismantled stone circle in the Preseli Hills of west Wales. Antiquity 95.379: 85–103. Parker Pearson, Mike, Joshua Pollard, Colin Richards, Julian Thomas, Chris Tilley, and Kate Welham 2020 Stonehenge for the Ancestors: Part I. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Parpola, Asko 2015 The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press. Pauketat, Timothy R. 1994 The Ascent of Chiefs. Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama. ——— 1998 “Refiguring the archaeology of Greater Cahokia.” Journal of Archaeological Research 6.1: 45–89. ——— 2013 An Archaeology of the Cosmos: Rethinking Agency and Religion in Ancient America. New York: Routledge. Pauketat, Timothy R., Susan M. Alt, and Jeffery D. Kruchten 2017 “The Emerald Acropolis: Elevating the moon and water in the rise of Cahokia.” Antiquity 91.355: 207–222. Pawlowska, Kamilla, and Adrian Marciszak 2018 “Small carnivores from a Late Neolithic burial chamber at Çatalhöyük, Turkey: Pelts, rituals, and rodents.” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10: 1225–1243. Pearce, Sarah 2002 “Judaea under Roman rule: 63 BCE-135 CE.” In The Biblical World, Volume I, John Barton (ed.), 458–491. London: Routledge. Pearson, James L. 2002 Shamanism and the Ancient Mind. Walnut Creek: AltaMira. Pelly, David F. 2001 The Sacred Hunt. Seattle: University of Washington.

406  Bibliography Peoples, Hervey C., Pavel Duda, and Frank W. Marlowe 2016 “Hunter-gatherers and the origins of religion.” Human Nature 27: 261–282. Peterson, Christian E., and Gideon Shelach 2012 “Jiangzhai: Social and economic organization of a Middle Neolithic Chinese village.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31: 265–301. Petrocchi, Marco C. 2015 “Deities.” In Encyclopedia of the Incas, Gary Urton and Adriana Von Hagen (eds.), 112–116. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Pettitt, P. B.,  M. García–Diez, D. Hoffmann, A. Maximiano Castillejo, R. Ontañon– Peredo, A. Pike,  and  J. Zilhão. 2015 “Are hand stencils in European cave art older than we think? An evaluation of the existing data and their potential implications.” In  Prehistoric Art as Prehistoric Culture: Studies in Honour of Professor Rodrigo de Balbín-Behrmann, P. Bueno-Ramirez and P. Bahn (eds.), 31–43. Oxford: Archaeopress. Pitts, Mike 2000 Hengeworld. London: Arrow. Plog, Steven 2011 “Ritual and cosmology in the Chaco era.” In Religious Transformation in the Late Pre-Hispanic Pueblo World, Donna M. Glowacki and Scott Van Keuren (eds.), 50–66. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. ——— 2015 “Understanding Chaco: Past, present, and future.” In Chaco Revisited: New Research on the Prehistory of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Carrie C. Heitman and Steven Plog (eds.), 3–29. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Plog, Stephen, and Carrie C. Heitman 2010 “Hierarchy and social inequality in the American Southwest, AD 800–1200.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 107.46: 19619–19626. Pollock, Susan 1999 Ancient Mesopotamia: The Eden That Never Was. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Pomeroy, Emma, Paul Bennett, Chris O. Hunt, Tim Reynolds, Lucy Farr, Marine Frouin, James Holman, Ross Lane, Charles French, and Graeme Barker 2020 “New Neanderthal remains associated with the ‘Flower Burial’ at Shanidar Cave.” Antiquity 94.373: 11–26. Pool, Christopher A., and Michael L. Loughlin 2017 “Creating memory and negotiating power in the Olmec heartland.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24: 229–260. Possehl, Gregory L. 2002 The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. ——— 2005 “Mohenjo-Daro: The symbolic landscape of an ancient city.” In Structure and Meaning in Human Settlements, Tony Atkin and Joseph Rykwest (eds.), 67–81. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Potter, Ben A., James C. Chatters, Anna Marie Prentiss, Stuart J. Fiedel, Gary Haynes, Robert L. Kelly, J. David Kilby, François Lanoë, Jacob Holland-Lulewicz, D. Shane Miller, Juliet E. Morrow, Angela R. Perri, Kurt M. Rademaker, Joshua D. Reuther, Brandon T. Ritchison, Guadalupe Sanchez, Ismael Sánchez-Morales, S. Margaret Spivey-Faulkner, Jesse W. Tune, and C. Vance Haynes 2022 “Current understanding of the earliest human occupations in the Americas: Evaluation of Becerra-Valdivia and Higham.” PaleoAmerica 8.1: 62–76. Potter, Ben A., Joshua D. Reuther, Vance T. Holliday, Charles E. Holmes, D. Shane Miller, and Nicholas Schmuck 2017 “Early colonization of Beringia and northern North America: Chronology, routes, and adaptive strategies.” Quarternary International 444: 36–55.

Bibliography 407 Price, Barbara J. 1978 “Demystification, enriddlement, and Aztec cannibalism: A materialist rejoinder to Harner.” American Ethnologist 5.1: 98–115. Price, Douglas T., Stephen Plog, Steven A. LeBlanc, and John Krigbaum 2017 “Great House origins and population stability at Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: The isotopic evidence.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11: 261–273. Price, Neil 2011 “Shamanism.” In The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, T. Insoll (ed.), 983–1003. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prieto, Gabriel, John W. Verano, Nicolas Goepfert, Douglas Kennett, Jeffrey Quilter, Steven LeBlanc, Lars Fehren-Schmitz, Jannine Forst, Mellisa Lund, Brittany Dement, Elise Dufour, Olivier Tombret, Melina Calmon, Davette Gadison, and Khrystyne Tschinkel 2019 “A mass sacrifice of children and camelids at the Huanchaquito-Las Llamas site, Moche Valley, Peru.” PLOS One 14.3: e0211691. Proulx, Donald A. 2001 “Ritual uses of trophy heads in ancient Nasca society.” In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru, Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G. Cook (eds.), 119–136. Austin: University of Texas. Purtill, Matthew P., Jeremy A. Norr, and Jonathan B. Frodge 2014 “Open-air ‘adena’ paired-post ritual features in the Middle Ohio valley: A new interpretation.” Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 39.1: 1–24. Puttick, Elizabeth 1997 Women in New Religions: In Search of Community, Sexuality, and Spiritual Power. New York: St. Martin’s. Quilter, Jeffrey, and Michele L. Koons 2012 “The fall of the Moche: A critique of claims for South America’s first state.” Latin American Quarterly 23.2: 127–143. Radovčić, Davorka, Ankica Oros Sršen, Jakov Radovčić, and David W. Frayer 2015 “Evidence for Neandertal jewelry: Modified white-tailed eagle claws at Krapina.” PLOS One 10(3): e0119802: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119802. Rainey, Anson 2007 “Whence came the Israelites and their language?” Israel Exploration Journal 57: 41–64. Rappaport, Roy 1967 “Ritual regulation of environmental relations among a New Guinea people.” Ethnology 6: 17–30. ——— 1968 Pigs for Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven: Yale University. ——— 1999 Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rast, Tim, and Christopher B. Wolff 2016 “Instruments of change: Late Dorset Palaeoeskimo drums and shamanism on Coastal Bylot Island, Nunavut, Canada.” Open Archaeology 2: 56–69. Ratnagar, Shereen 2001 Understanding Harappa. Civilization in the Greater Indus Valley. New Delhi: Tulika. ——— 2016 “A critical view of Marshall’s Mother Goddess at Mohenjo Daro.” Studies in People’s History 3.2: 113–131. Reilly, Patrick F., Audrey Tjahjadi, Samantha L. Miller, Joshua M. Akey, and Serena Tucci 2022 “The contribution of Neanderthal introgression to modern human traits.” Current Biology 32.18: R970–R983. Reinhard, Johan 2005 The Ice Maiden. Inca Mummies, Mountain Gods, and Sacred Sites in the Andes. Washington, DC: National Geographic. Reinhard, Johan, and Maria Constanza Ceruti 2010 Inca Rituals and Sacred Mountains: A Study of the World’s Highest Archaeological Sites. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.

408  Bibliography Reinhart, Katrinka 2015 “Religion, violence, and emotion: Modes of religiosity in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of northern China.” Journal of World Prehistory 28: 113–177. Relke, Joan 2011 “The Predynastic dancing Egyptian figurine.” Journal of Religion in Africa 41: 396–426. Renfrew, Colin 1987 Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— 1994 “The archaeology of religion.” In The Ancient Mind. Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, C. Renfrew and Ezra B. W. Zubrow (eds.), 47–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— 2004 “Chaco Canyon: A  view from the outside.” In Search of Chaco. New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, David Grant Noble (ed.), 101–106. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Reynolds, Gabriel S. 2023 The Emergence of Islam: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Rice, Patricia C. 1981 “Prehistoric Venuses: Symbols of motherhood or womanhood?” Journal of Anthropological Research 7.4: 402–416. Rick, John W. 2004 “The evolution of authority and power at Chavín de Huántar, Peru.” Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 14.1: 71–89. ——— 2013a “Architecture and ritual space at Chavín de Huántar.” In Chavín: Peru’s Enigmatic Temple in the Andes, Peter Fux (ed.), 151–166. Zurich: Scheidegger  & Spiess AG. ——— 2013b “Religion and authority at Chavín de Huántar.” In Chavín: Peru’s Enigmatic Temple in the Andes, Peter Fux (ed.), 167–176. Zurich: Scheidegger & Spiess AG. ——— 2017 “The nature of ritual space at Chavín de Huántar.” In Rituals of the Past Prehispanic and Colonial Case Studies in Andean Archaeology, Silvana A. Rosenfeld and Stefanie L. Bautista (eds.), 21–49. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Rios, L., T. L. Kiveli, C. Lalueza-Fox, A. Estalrrich, A. García-Tabernero, R. Huguet, Y. Quintino, M. de la Rasilla, and A. Rosas 2019 “Skeletal anomalies in the Neandertal family of El Sidrón (Spain) support a role of inbreeding in Neandertal extinction.” Scientific Reports 9: 1697. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38571-1. Rivero, Olivia, and Juan F. Ruiz 2018 “The rock art of Sub-Scandinavian Europe.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Rock Art, Bruno David and Ian J. McNiven (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: doi:10.1093/oxfor dhb/9780190607357.013.21. Robinson, Richard H., and Willard L. Johnson 1997 The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction. 4th ed. New York: Wadsworth. Rochberg, Francesca 2020 “Mesopotamian cosmology.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, David C. Snell (ed.), 305–320. Hoboken: Blackwell. Rogers, Spencer L. 1982 The Shaman: His Symbols and His Healing Power. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Romain, William F. 2000 Mysteries of the Hopewell: Astronomers, Geometers, and Magicians of the Eastern Woodlands. Akron: University of Akron. ——— 2015 An Archaeology of the Sacred: Adena-Hopewell Astronomy and Landscape Archarology. Olmsted Township: The Ancient Earthworks Project.

Bibliography 409 Ross, Jennifer C. 2009 “The scribal artifact: Technological innovation in Uruk period Mesopotamia.” In Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward, Sharon R. Steadman and Jennifer C. Ross (eds.). London: Equinox, forthcoming. Ross, Jennifer C., and Sharon R. Steadman 2017 Ancient Complex Societies. New York: Routledge. Ross, June, and Leo Abbott 2004 “ ‘These things take time’: Central Australian rock-art in context.” Australian Aboriginal Studies 1: 69–78. Ross, June, and Iain Davidson 2006 “Rock art and ritual: An archaeological analysis of rock art in arid Central Australia.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13.4: 305–341. Ross, June, and Mike Smith 2009 “An engraved ‘archaic face’ in the northeastern Simpson Desert.” Australian Archaeology 69: 68–70. Ross, June, and Mike Smith 2022 “ ‘Like broad arrows’: A  history of encounters with central Australian rock art.” In Histories of Rock Art Research, Paul S.C. Taçon, Sally K. May, Ursula K. Frederick, and Jo McDonald (eds.), 131–153, Terra Australis 55. Canberra: Australian National University. Rossano, Matt J., and Benjamin Vandewalle 2016 “Belief, ritual, and the evolution of religion.” In The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology and Religion, James R. Liddle and Todd K. Shackelford (eds.), 83–98. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks. Rountree, Kathryn 2001 “The past is a foreigners’ country: Goddess feminists, archaeologists, and the appropriation of prehistory.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 16.1: 5–27. Rozwadowski, Andrezej 2017 “Travelling through the rock to the otherworld: The shamanic ‘grammar of the mind’ within the rock art of Siberia.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27.3: 413–432. Ruby, Bret J. 2019 “Revealing ritual landscapes at the Hopewell mound group.” In Encountering Hopewell in the Twenty-first Century: Ohio and Beyond. Volume 1: Monuments and Ceremony, Brian G. Redmond, Bret J. Ruby, and Jarrod Burks (eds.), 79–116. Akron: University of Akron Press. Ruggles, Clive, and Nicholas J. Saunders 2012 “Desert Labyrinth: Lines, landscape and meaning at Nazca, Peru.” Antiquity 86: 1126–1140. Russell, Nerissa 2023 “Resting on strong shoulders: The power of animal scapulae in the Near Eastern Neolithic.” In The Bloomsbury Handbook of Material Religion in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Nicola Laneri and Sharon R. Steadman (eds.), 289–304. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Russell, Nerissa, and Stephanie Meece 2006 “Animal representations and animal remains at Çatalhöyük.” In Çatalhöyük Perspectives: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons, I. Hodder (ed.), 209–230. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Ryan, Karen 2016 “The ‘Dorset problem’ revisited: The transitional and early and middle Dorset periods in the eastern Arctic.” In The Oxford Handbook of The Prehistoric Arctic, T. Max Friesen and Owen K. Mason (eds.), 761–781. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sabar, Ariel 2016 “Unearthing the world of Jesus: In and around Galilee.” Smithsonian 46.9. www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515/. Sala, Nohemi, Juan Luis Arsuaga, Ana Pantoja-Pérez1, Adrián Pablos, Ignacio Martínez, Rolf M. Quam, Asier Gómez-Olivencia6, José María Bermúdez de Castro, and Eudald

410  Bibliography Carbonell 2015 “Lethal interpersonal violence in the middle Pleistocene.” PLOS One 10.5: e0126589. Saladié, Palmira, and Antonio Rodríguez-Hidelgo 2017 “Archaeological evidence for cannibalism in prehistoric Western Europe: From Homo antecessor to the Bronze Age.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24.4: 1034–1071. Samarendra, Padmanabh 2011 “Census in colonial India and the birth of caste.” Economic and Political Weekly 46.3: 51–58. Sarinov, D. G. 2009 “On the interpretation of central Asian and south Siberian rock art.” Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 37.2: 92–103. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2004 “Complex hunter-gatherers in evolution and history: A North American perspective.” Journal of Archaeological Research 12.3: 227–280. Scarre, Christopher 1998 Exploring Prehistoric Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schachner, Gregson 2015 “Ancestral Pueblo archaeology: The value of synthesis.” Journal of Archaeological Research 23: 49–113. Schebesch, Adeline 2013 “Five anthropomorphic figurines of the Upper Paleolithic— communication through body language.” Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 22: 61–100. Scholtsmans, E. M. J., G. Busacca, S. C. Lin, M. Vasić, A. M. Lingle, R. Veropoulidou, C. Mazzucato, B. Tibbetts, S. D. Haddow, M. Somel, F. Toksly Köksal, C. J. Knüsel, and M. Milella 2002 “New insights on commemoration of the dead through mortuary and architectural use of pigments at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey.” Scientific Reports 12: 4055. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07284-3. Schulting, Rick J. 2015 “Mesolithic skull cults?” In Ancient Death Ways: Proceedings of the Workshop on Archaeology and Mortuary Practices, Kim von Hackwitz and Rita Peyroteo-Stjerna (eds.), 19–46. Uppsala: Uppsala University. Seddon, Matthew T. 2013 “Tiwanaku ritual and political transformations in the core and peripheries.” In Visions of Tiwanaku, Alexei Vranich and Charles Stanish (eds.), 113– 134. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Seeman, Mark F., Kevin C. Nolan, and Mark A. Hill 2019 “Copper as an essential and exotic Hopewell metal.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 24: 1095–1101. Seva Román, Romualdo, M. Dolores Landete Ruiz, Jerónimo Juan-Juan, Christina Biete Bañón, Lawrence G. Straus, and Manuel R. Gonález Morales 2019 “Sources of the ochres associated with the Lower Magdalenian ‘Red Lady’ human burial and rock at in El Mirón Cave (Cantabria, Spain).” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 23: 265–280. Shao, Wangping 2005 “The formation of civilization: The interaction sphere of the Longshan period.” In The Formation of Chinese Civilization, An Archaeological Perspective, Sarah Allen (ed.), 85–123. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sharma, Anuradha 1998 Caste in India. New Delhi: Satish Garg. Shaw, Ian 2003 Exploring Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University. Shinde, Vasant 2016 “Current perspectives on the Harappan civilization.” In A Companion to South Asia in the Past, Gwen Robbins Schug and Subhash R. Walimbe (eds.). Malden: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119055280.ch9. Shrimali, Krishna M. 2017 “Religion, urbanism and the ruling apparatus of the Harappans.” Studies in People’s History 4.1: 91–104. Sidky, Homayun 2010 “On the antiquity of shamanism and its role in human religiosity.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 22: 68–92.

Bibliography 411 Silverblatt, Irene 2015 “Acllacuna.” In Encyclopedia of the Incas, Gary Urton and Adriana Von Hagen (eds.), 13–15. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Silverman, Helaine 2002 Ancient Nasca Settlement and Society. Iowa City: University of Iowa. Silverman, Helaine, and Donald A. Proulx 2002 The Nasca. Oxford: Blackwell. Sit, Victor F. S., and Fengxuan Xue 2010 Chinese City and Urbanism: Evolution and Development. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company. Slimak, Ludovic, and Christopher Nicholson 2020 “Cannibals in the forest: A comment on Defleur and Desclaux (2019).” Journal of Archaeological Science 117: doi:10.1016/j. jas.2019.105034.halshs-03002490. Smallwood, Ashley, Thomas Jennings, and Charlotte Pevny 2018 “Expressions of ritual in the Paleoindian record of the Eastern Woodlands: Exploring the uniqueness of the Dalton Cemetery at Sloan, Arkansas.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 49: 184–198. Smith, Craig B. 2004 How the Great Pyramid Was Built. Washington, DC: Smithsonian. Smith, Huston 1994 The Illustrated World’s Religions. HarperCollins: San Francisco. Smith, Michael E. 2011 The Aztecs. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Smith, Mike 2013 The Archaeology of Australia’s Deserts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Michael E., Abhishek Chatterjee, Angela C. Huster, Sierra Stewart, and Marion Forest 2019 “Apartment compounds, households, and population in the ancient city of Teotihuacan Mexico.” Ancient Mesoamerica: doi:10.1017/S0956536118000573. Snow, Dean 2006 “Sexual dimorphism in Upper Paleolithic hand stencils.” Antiquity 80: 390–404. ——— 2013 “Sexual dimorphism in European Upper Paleolithic cave art.” American Antiquity 78.4: 746–761. Snow, Meradeth, and Steven A. LeBlanc 2015 “A  biological perspective on Chacoan identity.” In Chaco Revisited: New Research on the Prehistory of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Carrie C. Heitman and Stephen Plog (eds.), 187–214. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Sofaer, Anna 1997 “The primary architecture of the Chacoan culture: A cosmological expression.” In Anasazi Architecture and American Design, B. H. Morrow and V. B. Price (eds.), 88–132. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. ——— 2007 Chaco Astronomy: An Ancient American Cosmology. Sante Fe: Ocean Tree Books. Soffer, Olga, J. M. Adovasio, and D. C. Hyland 2000 “The ‘Venus’ figurines: Textiles, basketry, gender, and status in the Upper Paleolithic.” Current Anthropology 41.4: 511–537. Soffer, Olga, Pamela Vandiver, Martin Oliva, and Ludik Seitl 1993 “Case of the exploding figurines.” Archaeology 46.1: 36–39. Solecki, Ralph 1975 “Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal flower burial in Northern Iraq.” Science 190: 880–881. Solomon, Anne 1998 “Ethnography and method in southern African rock-art research.” In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, Christopher Chippindale and Paul S. C. Taçon (eds.), 268–284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— 2001 “What is an explanation? Belief and cosmology in interpretations of southern San rock art in southern Africa.” In The Concept of Shamanism: Uses and Abuses,

412  Bibliography Henri-Paul Francfort and Roberte N. Hamayon (eds.), 161–177. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. ——— 2013 “The death of trance: Recent perspectives on San ethnographies and rock arts.” Antiquity 87.338: 1208–1213. ——— 2018 “Rock arts, shamans, and grand theories.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Rock Art, Bruno David and Ian J. McNiven (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190607357.013.51. Spikens, Penny, Andy Needham, Lorna Tilley, and Gail Hitchens 2018 “Calculated or caring? Neanderthal healthcare in social context.” World Archaeology 50.3: 384–403. Spivey, S. Margaret, Tristram R. Kidder, Anthony L. Ortmann, and Lee J. Arco 2015 “Pilgrimage to poverty point?” In The Archaeology of Events: Cultural Change and Continuity in the Pre-Columbian Southeast, Zackary I. Gilmore and Jason M. O’Donoughue (eds.), 141–159. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Spretnak, Charlene 2011 “Anatomy of a backlash: Concerning the work of Marija Gimbutas.” The Journal of Archaeomythology 7: 25–51. Squier, Ephraim G., and Edin H. Davis 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books. Srejović, Dragoslav 1972 New Discoveries at Lepenski Vir. New York: Stein and Day. Stanish, Charles 2013 “What was Tiwanaku?” In Visions of Tiwanaku, Alexei Vranich and Charles Stanish (eds.), 151–166. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Stanner, W. E. H. 1987 “The dreaming.” In Traditional Aboriginal Society: A Reader, W. H. Edwards (ed.), 225–236. Melbourne: MacMillan. ——— 1998 “Some aspects of Aboriginal religion.” In Religious Business. Essays on Australian Aboriginal Spirituality, Max Charlesworth (ed.), 1–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Stantis, Chris, Arwa Kharobi, Nina Maaranen, Geoff M. Nowell, Manfred Bietak, Silvia Prell, and Holget Schutkowski 2020 “Who were the Hyksos? Challenging traditional narratives using strontium isotope (87Sr/86Sr) analysis of human remains from ancient Egypt.” PLUS One 15.7: E0235414. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235414. Steadman, Sharon R. 2005 “Reliquaries on the landscape: Mounds as matrices of human cognition.” In Archaeologies of the Middle East: Critical Perspectives, Susan Pollock and Reinhard Bernbeck (eds.), 286–307. Oxford: Blackwell. Steelman, Karen L., and Marvin W. Rowe 2012 “Radiocarbon dating of rock paintings: Incorporating pictographs in the archaeological record.” In A Companion to Rock Art, Jo McDonald and Peter Veth (eds.), 565–582. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Stein, Rebecca L., and Philip L. Stein 2005 The Anthropology of Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft. Boston: Pearson. Steiner, Margreet L. 2019 Inhabiting the Promised Land: Exploring the Complex Relationship Between Archaeology and Ancient Israel as Depicted in the Bible. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Strange, James F. 2019 “Archaeology of the gospels.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Archaeology, David K. Pettegrew, William R. Caraher, and Thomas W. David (eds.), 31–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stuart, David E. 2000 Anasazi America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Bibliography 413 Stutley, Margaret 2003 Shamanism, an Introduction. London: Routledge. Sugandhi, Namita, and Kathleen Morrison 2011 “Archaeology of Hinduism.” In The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology of Ritual & Religion, Timothy Insoll (ed.), 921– 933. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sutherland, Patricia 1997 “The variety of artistic expression in Dorset Culture.” In Fifty Years of Arctic Research: Anthropological Studies from Greenland to Siberia, R. Gilberg and H. C. Gulløv (eds.), 287–293. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. ——— 2001a “Bear imagery in Palaeo-Eskimo art.” North Atlantic Studies 4.1–2: 13–16. ——— 2001b “Shamanism and the iconography of Palaeo-Eskimo art.” In The Archaeology of Shamanism, Neil Price (ed.), 135–145. London: Routledge. Svoboda, Jiří 2015 “Perspectives on the Upper Palaeolithic in Eurasia: The case of the Dolní Vestonice-Pavlov sites.” In Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia, Nuria Sanz (ed.), 190–204. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Swanson, Guy E. 1969 The Birth of the Gods: The Origin of Primitive Beliefs. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Szarzyńksa, Krystyna 2011 “Observations on the temple precinct EŠ3 in archaic Uruk.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 63: 1–4. Szpakowska, Kasia 2010 “Religion in society: Pharaonic.” In A Companion to Ancient Egypt Volume I, Alan B. Lloyd (ed.), 506–525. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Taçon, Paul S. C., Meredith Wilson, and Christopher Chippendale 1996 “Birth of the rainbow serpent in Arnhem Land rock art and oral history.” Archaeology in Oceania 31: 103–124. Tainter, Joseph A. 1978 “Mortuary practices and the study of prehistoric social systems.” In Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory I, Michael Schiffer (ed.), 106–143. New York: Academic. ——— 1980 “Behavior and status in a Middle Woodland mortuary population from the Illinois Valley.” American Antiquity 45.2: 308–313. Tate, Carolyn E. 2012 Reconsidering Olmec Visual Culture: The Unborn, Women, and Creation. Austin: University of Texas press. Tattersal, Ian, and Jeffrey Schwartz 2000 Extinct Humans. New York: Westview. Taylor, John H. 2010 “Changes in the afterlife.” In Egyptian Archaeology, Willeke Wendrich (ed.), 220–240. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Tedlock, Barbara 2005 The Woman in the Shaman’s Body. Reclaiming the Feminine in Religion and Medicine. New York: Bantam. Teeter, Emily 2011 Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, Andrew R., Kristin M. Hedman, and Philip A. Slater 2015 “New dental and isotope evidence of biological distance and place of origin for mass burial groups at Cahokia’s Mound 72.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 158: 341–357. Thornton, Robert J. 2020 “Therianthropes as human-animal relations: Contextualising rock art in anthropological perspective.” Anthropology Southern Africa 43.3: 181–196. Thorp, Robert L. 2006 China in the Early Bronze Age: Shang Civilization. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

414  Bibliography Tiesler, Vera, and Guilhem Olivier 2020 “Open chests and broken hearts: Ritual sequences and meanings of human heart sacrifice in Mesoamerica.” Current Anthropology 61.2: 168–193. Toll, H. Wolcott 2004 “Artifacts in Chaco. Where they came from and what they mean.” In In Search of Chaco: New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, David G. Noble (ed.), 33–40. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Topping, Peter 2010 “Native American mound building traditions.” In Round Mounds and Monumentality in the British Neolithic and Beyond, Jim Leary, Timothy Darvill, and David Field (eds.), 219–252. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Townsend, Joan B. 1997 “Shamanism.” In Anthropology of Religion: A Handbook, Stephen D. Glazier (ed.), 429–469. Westport: Greenwood. Townsend, Richard F. 1991 “The Mt. Tlaloc project.” In Aztec Ceremonial Landscapes, Davíd Carrasco (ed.), 26–30. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Trainor, Kevin 2001a “The career of Siddhartha.” In Buddhism, The Illustrated Guide, Kevin Trainor (ed.), 22–39. Oxford: Oxford University. ——— 2001b “Theravada Buddhism.” In Buddhism, The Illustrated Guide, Kevin Trainor (ed.), 120–131. Oxford: Oxford University. Tringham, Ruth, and Margaret Conkey 1998 “Rethinking figurines: A critical view from archaeology of Gimbutas, the ‘goddes’ and popular culture.” In Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence, Lucy Goodison and Christine Morris (eds.), 22–45. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Trinkaus, Erik, and Pat Shipman 1992 The Neanderthals: Of Skeletons, Scientists, and Scandal. New York: Vintage. Trinkhaus, Erik 1983 The Shanidar Neandertals. New York: Academic Press. Tsaferis, V. 1985 “Crucifixion—the archaeological evidence.” Biblical Archaeological Review 11: 44–53. Tunbridge, Dorothy 1988 Flinders Ranges Dreaming. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Turner, Victor 1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University. ——— 1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Turpin, Solveig A. 2001 “Archaic North America.” In Handbook of Rock Art Research, David S. Whitley (ed.), 361–413. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Tylor, Edward B. 1871 [1961]. Primitive Culture. New York: Harper. Uceda, Santiago 2008 “The priests of the bicephalus arc: Tombs and effigies found in Huaca de la Luna and their relation to Moche rituals.” In The Art and Archaeology of the Moche: An Ancient Andean Society of the Peruvian North Coast, Steve Bourget and Kimberly L. Jones (eds.), 153–178. Austin: University of Texas Press. Ucko, Peter J. 1969 “Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains.” World Archaeology 1: 262–280. Underhill, Anne P. 2002 Craft Production and Social Change in Northern China. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Underhill, Anne P., and Junko Habu 2006 “Early communities in East Asia: Economic and sociopolitical organization at the local and regional levels.” In Archaeology of Asia, M. T. Stark (ed.), 121–148. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Bibliography 415 Van Dyke, Ruth M. 2004 “Chaco’s sacred geography.” In In Search of Chaco: New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, David G. Noble (ed.), 79–86. Santa Fe: School of American Research. ——— 2019 “Chaco gathers: Experience and assemblage in the ancient Southwest.” In New Materialisms Ancient Urbanisms, Susan M. Alt and Timothy R. Pauketat (eds.), 39–64. New York: Routledge. Vandiver, Pamela B. 2022 “Upper Paleolithic ceramic figurines and similarities to some Late Pleistocene pigment and pottery materials and technologies of Eurasia.” Quarternary International 20.608–609: 8–32. Verano, John W. 2008 “Communality and diversity in Moche human sacrifice.” In The Art and Archaeology of the Moche: An Ancient Andean Society of the Peruvian North Coast, Steve Bourget and Kimberly L. Jones (eds.), 195–213. Austin: University of Texas Press. Vidale, Maximo 2010 “Aspects of palace life at Mohenjo-Daro.” South Asian Studies 26.1: 59–76. Vinnicombe, Patricia 1976 People of the Eland. Rock Paintings of the Drakensberg Bushmen as a Reflection of Their Life and Thought. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal. Vitebsky, Piers 1993 Dialogues with the Dead: The Discussion of Morality Among the Sora of Eastern India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— 1995 The Shaman. Voyages of the Soul Trance, Ecstasy, and Healing from Siberia to the Amazon. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Vitebsky, Piers, and Anatoly Alekseyev 2020 “Indigenous Arctic religions.” In Routledge Handbook of Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic, Timo Koivurova, Else Grete Broderstad, Dorothée Cambou, Dalee Dorough, and Florian Stammler (eds.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429270451. Vitelli, Karen 1996 Archaeological Ethics. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Vivian, R. Gwinn, and Adam S. Watson 2015 “Reevaluating and modeling agricultural potential in the Chaco core.” In Chaco Revisited: New Research on the Prehistory of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Carrie C. Heitman and Stephen Plog (eds.), 30–65. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. von Falkenhausen, Lothar 2008 “Stages in the development of ‘cities’ in Pre-Imperial China.” In The Ancient City: New Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World, J. Marcus and J. A. Sabloff (eds.), 209–228. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research. Von Hagen, Adriana 2015 “Islands of the sun and the moon.” In Encyclopedia of the Incas, Gary Urton and Adriana Von Hagen (eds.), 167–169. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Vukosavović, Filip, Joe Uziel, and Ortal Chalaf 2021 “Jerusalem, city of David.” Israel Antiquities Authority 133. www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27131705. Waguespack, Nicole 2012 “Early Paleoindians, from colonization to Folsom.” In The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology, Tomothy R. Pauketat (ed.), 86–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walker, Renee B. 2020 “Caches and burials. Ritual use of Dust Cave during the Paleoindian and Archaic periods.” In Shaman, Priest, Practice, Belief, Stephen B. Carmody and Casey R. Barrier (eds.), 28–36. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

416  Bibliography Warren, Graeme 2021 “Is there such a thing as hunter-gatherer archaeology?” Heritage 4: 794–810. Watson, Adam S., Stephen Plog, Brendan J. Culleton, Patricia A. Gilman, Steven A. LeBlanc, Peter M. Whiteley, Santiago Claramunt, and Douglas J. Kennett 2015 “Early procurement of scarlet macaws and the emergence of social complexity in Chaco Canyon, NM.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 112.27: 8238–8243. Webb, Peter 2013 “The Hajj before Muhammad: Journeys to Mecca in Muslim narratives of Pre-Islamic history.” In The Hajj: Collected Essays, Venetia Porter and Liana Saif (eds.), 6–14. London: The British Museum. ——— 2018 “Identity and social formation in the Early Caliphate.” In Handbook on Early Islam, Herbert Berg (ed.), 129–158. Abingdon: Routledge. Weiner, Robert S., and Klara B. Kelley 2021 “Asdzáán Nágidudáhí (Lady Picker-Up) at Fajada Butte: Astronmy, landscape, and the Basketmaker III origins of Chacoan ceremonialism.” Kiva: doi:10.1080/00231940.2021.1919373 Weisgrau, Maxine K. 2000 “Vedic and Hindu traditions.” In Religion and Culture: An Anthropological Focus, Raymond Scupin (ed.), 225–248. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Whitley, David S. 1994 “By the hunter, for the gatherer: Art, social relations and subsistence change in the prehistoric Great Basin.” World Archaeology 25.3: 356–377. ——— 1998 “Finding rain in the desert: Landscape, gender and far western North American rock-art.” In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, Christopher Chippindale and Paul S. C. Taçon (eds.), 11–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— 2000 The Art of the Shaman: Rock Art of California. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. ——— (ed.) 2001 Handbook of Rock Art Research. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. ——— 2008 “Religion.” In Handbook of Archaeological Theories, R. Alexander Bendley, Herbert D. G. Maschner, and Christopher Chippendale (eds.), 547–566. Lanham: AltaMira Press. ——— 2011 Introduction to Rock Art Research. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. ——— 2013 “Rock art dating and the peopling of the Americas.” Journal of Archaeology 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/713159. ——— 2014 “Future directions in hunter-gatherer research: Hunter-gatherer religion and ritual.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of HunterGatherers, V. Cummings, P. Jordan, and M. Zvelebil (eds.), 1221–1242. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— 2018 “Rock art of North America.” In The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology and Anthropology of Rock Art, Bruno David and Ian J. McNiven (eds.), 253–272. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— 2019 “The archaeology of madness.” In Handbook of Cognitive Archaeology: Psychology in Prehistory, Tracy Henley, Matt J. Rossano, and Edward P. Kardas (eds.), 451–470. New York: Routledge. Whitley, David S., Ronald I. Dorn, Joseph M. Simon, Robert Rechtman, and Tamara K. Whitley 1999 “Sally’s Rock shelter and the archaeology of the vision quest.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9: 221–247. Whittle, Alasdair, and Joshua Pollard 1999 “The harmony of symbols: Wider meanings.” In The Harmony of Symbols: The Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure, Alasdair

Bibliography 417 Whittle, Joshua Pollard, and Caroline Grigson (eds.), 381–390. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Wilkinson, Toby 2010 “The early dynastic period.” In A Companion to Ancient Egypt Volume I, Alan B. Lloyd (ed.), 48–62. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Williams, Patrick R. 2022 “The Inca Capac Hucha.” In Beyond Death: Belief, Practice, and Material Expression, Patrick R. Williams and Gary M. Feinman (eds.), 53–54. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Willis, Michael 2001 “Ashoka the builder.” In Buddhism, The Illustrated Guide, Kevin Trainor (ed.), 52–55. Oxford: Oxford University. Wills, W. H., and Wetherbee B. Dorshow. 2012 “Agriculture and community in Chaco Canyon: Revisiting Pueblo Alto.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31: 138–155. Wills, W. H., and Thomas C. Windes 1989 “Evidence for population aggregation and dispersal during the Basketmaker III Period in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.” American Antiquity 54: 347–369. Wilshusen, Richard H. 2018 “How agriculture took hold in the Mesa Verde region: A review of recent research on the Late Basketmaker–Early Pueblo periods (A.D. 500– 920). Reviews in Colorado Archaeology 1.4: 69–95. Winkelman, Michael 2008 “Cross-cultural and biogenetic perspectives on the origins of shamanism.” In Belief in the Past. Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion, David S. Whitley and Kelley Hays-Gilpin (eds.), 43–66. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast. ——— 2011 “Shamanism in cross-cultural perspective.” International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 31.2: 47–62. ——— 2019 “The evolutionary origins of the supernatural in ritual behaviours.” In The Supernatural after the Neuro-Turn, Pieter F. Craffert, John R. Baker, and Michael J. Winkelman (eds.), 48–68. London: Routledge. Wright, Rita P. 2010 The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Xu, Hong 2013 “The Erlitou culture.” In A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, Anne P. Underhill (ed.), 300–322. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Xu, Jay 1996 “The cemetery of the Western Zhou lords of Jin.” Aribus Asiae 56.3/4: 193–231. Xue, Cheng, and Yingzhi Xu 2017 “On the origin of early Jade Dagger-Axe: A brief analysis.” Archaeological Discovery 5.3: 78002: doi:10.4236/ad.2017.53011. Yang, Qian 2019 “Conflict and identity: The ritual of wall construction in early China.” Asian Perspectives 58.2: 287–315. Yates, Robin D. 2001 “Cosmos, central authority, and communities in the early Chinese empire.” In Empires. Perspectives from Archaeology and History, Susan E. Alcock, Terence N. D’Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, and Carla M. Sinopoli (eds.), 351–368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yerkes, Richard 1988 “The Woodland and Mississippian traditions in the prehistory of Midwestern North America.” Journal of World Prehistory 2.3: 307–358. Yuston, Marta, and José Yravedra Sainz de los Terreros 2015 “Cannibalism in the Neanderthal world: An exhaustive revision.” Journal of Taphonomy 13.1: 33–52.

418  Bibliography Zhang, Zhongpei 2005 “The Yangshao period: Prosperity and the transformation of prehistoric society.” In The Formation of Chinese Civilization, an Archaeological Perspective, Sarah Allen (ed.), 43–83. New Haven: Yale University Press. Zhu, Yanping 2013 “The early neolithic in the central Yellow River Valley, c. 7000–4000 BC.” In A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, Anne P. Underhill (ed.), 171–193. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Zilhão, João 2014 “The Upper Palaeolithic of Europe.” In The Cambridge World History, Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn (eds.), 1753–1785. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— 2015 “Lower and Middle Palaeolithic mortuary behaviours and the origins of ritual burial.” In Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient World: ‘Death Shall Have No Dominion’, Colin Renfrew, Michael J. Boyd, and Iain Morley (eds.), 27–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zilhão, João, Diego E. Angelucci, Ernestina Badal-García, Francesco d’Errico, Floréal Daniel, Laure Dayet, Katerina Douka, Thomas F. G. Higham, María José MartínezSánchez, Ricardo Montes-Bernárdez, Sonia Murcia-Mascarós, Carmen Pérez-Sirvent, Clodoaldo Roldán-García, Marian Vanhaeren, Valentín Villaverde, Rachel Wood, and Josefina Zapata 2010 “Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neanderthals.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107.3: 1023–1028. Zimmerman, Larry J., Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmerman (eds.) 2003 Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira. Zollikofer, Christoph P. E., Marcia S. Ponce de León, Bernard Vandermeersch, and François Lévêque 2002 “Evidence for interpersonal violence in the St. Césaire Neanderthal.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99.9: 6444–6448.

Index

Page numbers in italics and bold indicate Figures and Tables, respectively. Aboriginals see Australian Aboriginals Abraham 336 – 337, 375 Abydos 298 – 299 Adena cultural complex 162 – 163 Africa see Egypt/Egyptians afterlife, belief in 61 – 62 agro-pastoralism 139 Ai (city) 342 Akkad 321, 330 Akkadian empire 316, 330 – 333 Akurra (snake) 99 Al-Lah 372 – 374, 376 Al-Lāt 372 – 374, 373 Altar Stone 149 altered states of consciousness (ASC) 38 – 40, 88; see also trance states Al-‘Uzza 372 – 374, 373 Amaduat 313 American Bottom 169 Ammut 309, 314 Anangu culture 99 – 100 Anasazi see Ancestral Puebloans ancestor spirits 26 ancestor veneration: of the Bedouin 374; bronze drinking vessels 278; burial mounds and 165; at Çatalhöyük 134; in Chacoan culture 189; in Chinese religion 272, 289; description of 26; figurines used for 129; of Longshan culture 274; of Nazca culture 225; Neanderthals and 61 – 62; in Neolithic religion 155;

in Upper Paleolithic cultures 121, 129; of Yangshao culture 272; see also burials Ancestral Puebloans: astronomical observations 186; Basketmaker Cultures 178 – 179; Chaco Canyon (see Chaco Canyon settlements); earliest settlements of 178 – 179; map of 178; public rituals 228; Pueblo Bonito (see Pueblo Bonito); Pueblo phases 179; Tiwanaku 228 Andean South America: Chavín de Huántar 213 – 218, 215; Chimú 229 – 230; Incas (see Inca Empire); Lake Titicaca 228; map of 214; Moche culture 218 – 222, 220, 223, 237; Nazca culture (see Nazca culture); Wari 228 – 229 animal domestication: in ancient Peru 213; in ancient Sumar 317; at Çatalhöyük 131, 134; in Europe 116; by the Moche people 218; in Neolithic period 128, 131, 139; in predynastic Egypt 295; in Yangshao period 271 animal husbandry 139 animal sacrifices 262, 281, 374 animal spirits 38 animal symbolism 80, 217 animism/animistic belief systems 16, 26, 64, 72

420 Index anthropological terminology, careful use of 30 anthropology, re-orienting field of 17 anthropomorphic images 41 – 43, 42, 66, 80 – 81, 102, 103 Anthropomorphic Mythical Being 225 – 226 Anu 321, 326 Anubis 307 – 308, 309, 313, 314 Ao 279 Apep 309 Apsu 321 Arabia 370, 371, 371; see also Mecca; pre-Islamic Arabia Arapaho Ghost Dance 12 archaeological record: myth and 22 – 23; religious specialists and 28 – 30; ritual and 23 – 25; of shamans 40 – 45; supernatural beings and 26 – 27 archaeology: changes in methods 3; cultural sensitivity of 4 – 5; importance of 3 – 4; of rock art (see rock art) archaeology of religion, as a subdiscipline to archaeology 20 – 22 Archaic period 76, 159 Arctic hunter-gatherers 71 – 76, 71 Ark of the Covenant 341, 341, 349, 350 – 351; see also Ten Commandments Arrernte culture 99, 105 – 106 artifacts: automatic assignment trap 24 – 25, 46; bronze drinking vessels 278; cached 77 – 78; at Chaco Canyon 188 – 189; Clovis points 70; of Dorset Culture 74 – 75; effigy pipes 162 – 163, 162, 167 – 168, 167; in Hopewell burials 167, 167; moisture-making 188; of Old Bering Sea culture 76; at paleolithic Siberian sites 66, 67; polar bear 75; of shamans 45; see also female figurines; figurines Ashdod (city) 350 Asherah 344, 346 – 347, 346, 348 Ashoka 267 – 268 Ashtoreth/Astarte 348 Assyria 354 astronomical observations 149, 155, 186 Atahualpa 230

Atapuerca “Pit of Bones” 50 Atharva Veda 243 Aubrey Holes 149 Aurignacian period 115 Australia: aboriginal cultures of (see Australian Aboriginals); Alice Springs 99; Anangu culture 99 – 100; Arrernte culture 99, 105 – 106; Cleland Hills 103; Coroboree rock 99, 100; ecosystems of 95; Emily Gap 106; Flinders Range 99; Gap Hole 103; Lake Mungo region 93 – 95; Madjedbebe Malakunanja 93; map of 94; rock art (see Australian rock art); sacred landmarks 99 – 100; stone monuments 99 – 101; Uluru monolith 98, 99 – 101 Australian Aboriginals: artistic rendering of 107; diet 95; Dreamtime 97 – 98; Dreamtime stories 99 – 100, 106; earliest settlement of 93 – 95; as hunters 95; initiation rites 98; kinship system 96, 97; as nomadic 95 – 96; religious practices 64, 96 – 98; ritual behaviors 93; ritual practices 98; social structure 95 – 97; totemic ancestors, belief in 96 Australian rock art: animal tracks 104 – 105; anthropomorphs 103; archaic faces 102 – 103, 104; caterpillar dreaming 106; Complex Figurative Style 101, 104; Dreamtime and 101 – 102; at Emily Gap 106; engravings 101; at Ewaninga 104, 105 – 106, 105; hand stencils 100 – 101; at Hunter’s Cave 101, 104; in Kimberley region 108 – 111; Mimi style 101, 109 – 111; painted art 101, 106 – 111; in Pilbara region 102, 103; as public 101 – 102; Rainbow Serpent 106 – 108; Simple Figurative Style 101; styles and motifs 100 – 101 Austro-Asiatic speakers 241 Avebury henge site 144 – 146, 145 Avenue of the Dead 193 – 195, 194 avoidance kin 87

Index 421 Aztec Empire: calendar 203, 204; capital city 199 – 200; commoners 197 – 199; foundation myth 198; gaining territories 199 – 200; House of Youth 199; nobility 197 – 198; origins of 196 – 197; overview 190; religion/belief systems (see Aztec religion); rise of 197 – 200; rulers of 200, 201; slaves 198; Teotihuacan 193 – 195, 203; warfare and 210; warriors 199; warrior training 199; writing system 200 Aztec religion: blood and heart, power of 210; bloodletting rituals 205, 210; child sacrifices 206 – 207; countryside temples 204 – 205; discrepancies in 201; Fifth Sun creation myth 201 – 203; Flayed Man ritual 208, 210; human sacrifices 205 – 211, 207; landscape in, importance of 204; multi-layered world concept 201; overview 200 – 201; principal gods of 201, 202; ritual beliefs 205 – 208; sacrificial victims’ selection 206 – 207; Xipe Totec sacrifice 208, 209, 210 Ba’al Hadad 344, 346, 347, 348 Baal-Zebul/Baal-Zebub 348 Babylon 330, 351 Babylonian Exile 351 Banpo 271 Basketmaker Cultures 178 – 179 Beaded Burial 172 – 173 Bedouin 361, 370 – 375 behavioral codes 6 – 7 belief systems see religion/belief systems Bent Pyramid 300, 301 Beringia (Bering Strait) 68, 69 Beringian Standstill 69 – 70 Bethlehem 358 – 360, 364 – 365 bible, the see Greek Bible; Hebrew Bible biblical archaeology 6 Binford, Lewis 20 Birger figurine 174 – 175, 174 black market trade 5 Boas, Franz 17 bodhisattvas 268 body decoration 76

Book of Gates, The 313 Book of the Dead, The 313 Book of the Two Ways, The 313 boomerang 95 Borbonicus Codex 202 Boule, Marcellin 51 Boyer, Paul 14 – 15 Brahma 244, 245 Brahman 244 Brahmin varna 243 Brassempouy, carved ivory head 125 Bronze Age, China in 275 – 278 bronze technology: development of 277; drinking vessels 278; in Shang period 283 Bruniquel Cave 54 Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) 265 – 267 Buddhism 265 – 269 bull cult 133 burial mounds 163 – 164, 165, 168 – 169 burials: Beaded Burial 172 – 173; burial placement 58; at Chaco Canyon 184 – 185; Dederiyeh Cave 57; of dogs 79 – 80; Dolní Věstonice site 122 – 123; flower burial 59, 60; in Hopewell culture 167, 167; Kebara Cave 57; kinship ties 272; La Ferrassie cave 57 – 59, 58; at Lepenski Vir 137 – 138; long barrow tombs 152 – 153; in Mississippian culture 172; in mounds 163 – 164, 165, 168 – 169; Neanderthal 57 – 62; in North America 77 – 80; Old Bering Sea culture artifacts 76; Old Man of La Chapelle 57, 60 – 61; at Pueblo Bonito 184 – 185, 188 – 189; ritual behaviors in 57 – 62; of shaman and his toolkit 79; Shanidar Cave 59 – 60; at Sipán 219 – 221; Sloan site 78; specialized treatment in 122 – 123; triple burials 123; in Yangshao period 272 Buto site 296 Bylot Island 75 Byzantine empire 370 Cahokia site: Beaded Burial 172 – 173; description of 169 – 170; figurines 174 – 175; woodhenges 171 – 172 Cahuachi 224

422 Index Caiaphas 361, 367 Caiaphas ossuary 368 cairns 73, 73 calendars: Aztec Empire 203, 204; of Inca Empire 233; see also time Canaan: Abraham and 336 – 337, 375; Conquest Model 342; economic instability 344; Egyptians march on 338 – 339; Israelites’ conquest of 341 – 344; map of 337; Peaceful Infiltration model 342 – 343; periods, dates and events in 337 Canaanites: deities of 344 – 345; Israelites and 344 – 347; religion/belief systems 344 – 347; statues 346 – 347; temples 345; temple styles 345 cannibalism 55 – 56, 62, 208 – 210 canopic jars 310 – 312 Capernaum 360, 365, 366 Caradoc, cached artifacts at 77 – 78 Carnac region, menhirs at 141 – 143, 142 Carnarvon, George, Earl of 3, 4, 303 Carter, Howard 3, 4, 303 carved stones: in Australia 99 – 100; description of 135 – 136; fish-like figure 136, 137; of Harappan civilization 258 – 260, 260; interpretations of 136 – 138; from Lepenski Vir 135 – 136, 136, 137; of Olmec head 191; of Olmecs 190 caste system 242 – 243, 262 – 264 Çatalhöyük 131 – 134, 131, 132, 133 caterpillar dreaming 106 causewayed enclosures 139 – 141, 166 cave art: depicting shaman’s mission 121 – 122; figurative 118 – 122; hand stencils 117 – 118, 117; ice age animals 119; identifying artists of 122; male-female principle 121; non-hunting related 119 – 120; see also rock art Chaco Canyon settlements: agricultural management 180; ancestor veneration 189; architecture 179; artifacts 188 – 189; belief systems 185 – 188; burials 184 – 185; Chetro Ketl site 186; class differentiations 183; Fajida Butte 186; farming opportunities

179 – 180; Great Houses 177, 179, 180, 183 – 185; kinship relationships 184 – 185, 189; pottery 179, 181, 181; prayer sticks 184; Pueblo Bonito (see Pueblo Bonito); as redistributive economy 183 – 184; roadway systems 180 – 181; social stratification 183 – 185; trade networks 180; see also Pueblo Bonito Chapultepec “Grasshopper Hill” 197 Châtelperronian period 115 Chavín de Huántar culture 213 – 218, 215 Chetro Ketl site 186 child sacrifices 206 – 207 Chimú 229 – 230, 235 China: ancestor veneration 272, 289; in Bronze Age 275 – 278; Erlitou state (see Erlitou culture); kinship role in society 270, 272, 278; Longshan culture 273 – 274; map of 271; neolithic period in 270 – 274; ritual behaviors 289; Shang Dynasty (see Shang Dynasty); Taosi settlement 274; Yangshao culture 271 – 273; Yangshao pottery 273; Yanshi settlement 275, 276; Zhengzhou settlement 279 Christianity 358 – 361, 369; see also Jesus Christ Church of the Nativity 359 – 360 clay nails 328, 328 Cleland Hills 103 cloud blowers 188 Clovis Culture 68 – 70, 77 – 78 Clovis Dispersal model 70 Clovis points 70 Coatlicue 206 Coffin Texts 312 – 313 cognitive archaeology 21 collective cooperative communities 165 colonialism 11 Columbia University 17 communal monuments see monuments communitas 19 Complex Figurative Style 101, 104 complex hunter-gatherer societies 63, 122 – 123; see also hunter-gatherer cultures

Index 423 Conquest Model 342 consciousness see altered states of consciousness (ASC); third eye of consciousness contagious magic 16 Corn Mother 175 Coroboree rock 99, 100 Cortés, Hernando 211 – 212 cosmologies: description of 22; of Mississippian culture 173 – 175; of modern Puebloans 185 – 186; multiple layers of existence 64, 67; of Olmec culture 190 – 191; quadripartite cosmology 173; vertical 173 – 174; see also religion/belief systems Coso Range 80 cow/bull iconography 20, 27, 261 craft production 219, 248, 271, 277 – 278, 280 – 281, 317 – 318 creation myths 19, 23, 193, 321; see also cosmologies; religion/belief systems cremations 148, 149 – 150, 152, 154, 163, 168 Crowfield site 78 Cuerva de Ardales cave 54 – 55 Cult of the Lanzón 217 – 218 cults 11, 378 cultural diversity, evolutionary models for 17 – 18 cultural materialism 19 – 20 cultural relativism 17 cultural resources management (CRM) 5 culture, religion reflecting 7 – 8 cuneiform writing 323 – 324, 323 cylinder seals 317 – 318, 318 Dagon 344, 347 d’Alamek site 75 Dalit varna 243, 264 – 265 Dalton culture 78 Darwin, Charles 16 David, King of Israel 349 – 350, 353 Dead Sea Scrolls 358, 361 – 363, 362 Decapitator God 222 Dederiyeh Cave 57 deified kings/rulers 10, 281, 285 – 286, 288, 310, 314 deities see gods/goddesses Delilah, Samson and 349

demons 307, 309, 322 Denisova Cave 67 Descent of Ishtar 325 Dhamek Stupa 268 direct historical approach 65 divination 34 – 35, 274 divine power of ruling class 281, 285 – 286, 288, 310, 314 diviners 281 Djoser, King of Egypt 299 – 300 Dolní Věstonice site 122 – 123, 124 Dome of the Rock 351 Dorset culture 71 – 72, 74 – 76 Douglas, Mary 19 Drakensberg region 91 Dravidian language speakers 241 Dreamtime 97 – 98, 101 – 102, 106 dualism 218 – 219, 221, 222 Dumuzi 325 Durga 257 Durkheim, Emile 16 – 17, 22 – 23 Durrington Walls settlement 151 Dust Cave 78, 79 Dynamic Style see Mimi art Ea/Enki 321 – 322, 324 – 325 Eanna Precinct at Uruk 327 – 328, 327, 328 Early Dynastic period 316 – 317 Early Shang period 275 Easter Island 8, 9 Eastern Zhou Dynasty 289 effigy mounds 163 – 164 effigy pipes 162 – 163, 162, 167 – 168, 167 Egypt/Egyptians: afterlife, belief in 309 – 310; ancient periods of 295, 296; animal domestication 295; Buto site 296; death cult 307 – 309; death ritual 310 – 314; early dynastic 298 – 299; feasting activities 305; Fourth Dynasty 300; gods/goddesses of 306 – 310, 308, 313 – 314; Heliopolis 303; Hierakonpolis 296 – 298; household altars 306; Hyksos’ invasion of 338 – 339; Israel invasion 354; Israelites in 337 – 339; judgment scene 313; Ma’adi 296; Maidum 300; map of 297; march on Canaan 338 – 339; netherworld 312; obsession with

424 Index death 310 – 314; pharaohs of 303, 305, 309 – 310, 313 – 314, 339; pilgrimage destinations 305; plant cultivation and domestication 295; predynastic 295 – 298; pyramid cities 304; pyramids (see pyramids of Egypt); Pyramid Texts 312 – 313; recordkeeping 337; royal tombs 299; sacred texts 312 – 314; Sea Peoples’ battle with 343; temples of 305 – 306, 307; Third Dynasty 299 – 300 Eightfold Path 266 El 344 – 345 Eland Dance 87 El Mirón Cave 122 El Sidrón 56 embalming process 310 – 311, 311 Emily Gap 106 engraved art 101, 102 – 103, 105, 105 Enheduanna 332 Enkidu 324, 325 Enki/Ea 321 – 322, 324 – 325 enlightenment 266 enthroned goddess 130, 133 entoptic phenomena 43 – 44 entropic phenomena 93, 121 Enuma Elish 321 Epic of Gilgamesh 324 – 325, 325 Eridu (city) 322 Erlingang 275 Erlitou culture: bronze technology 277; craft production 277; development of 275 – 276; Jua vessels 277; palace 276 – 277, 276; sacrificial burials of 276 – 277; social stratification 278 Essenes 357 – 358, 363 – 364 ethics 5 – 6 ethnarch 355 ethnoarchaeological methodology 20 – 21, 44 European Upper Paleolithic cultures 115 – 116, 139 Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 19 Ewaninga 104, 105 – 106, 105 exocannibalism 56 Exodus 337 – 340 Fajida Butte 186 farming 139, 179 – 180

feasting activities: of Egyptians 305; of England’s Neolithic inhabitants 141, 152, 154; in Nazca culture 224; in Neolithic Yangshao culture 272, 274, 289; in Shang dynasty 283 Feast of the Flayed Man 208, 210 Feathered Serpent Temple 193, 195, 196 female deities 233 female figurines: ancestor veneration and 129; breast beads 123, 125; carved ivory head 125; enthroned goddess 130; Harappan 258, 259; of Harappan civilization 258, 259; interpreting 126 – 127; linked to the hearth 129; materials used for 127 – 128; “mother goddess” 127, 128 – 129; in Neolithic Europe 130; as portable art 123 – 126; rod with breasts 123; as self-portraits 127; in Upper Paleolithic 123 – 128, 124; Venus 126; wearing clothing 128; see also figurines female shamans 33 feminist movement 11 feudal system 288 Field of Reeds 312 fieldwork, efficacy of 17, 18 Fifth Sun creation myth 201 – 203 figurines: in ancestor veneration 129; Birger figurine 174 – 175, 174; bull 255; at Cahokia 174 – 175; enthroned goddess 130; female (see female figurines); male 258, 331; terracotta 255, 258, 259; in Upper Paleolithic cultures 123 – 128, 124; votive statues 330, 331; see also statues finger amputations 118 fire, purification by 244 – 245, 261, 262 fire altars 253 Fire Priests 205 fire purification 262 Firth, Raymond 14 Fish Monster 191 “Five Pillars of Islam” 376 Flayed Man ritual 208, 210 Flinders Range 99 flood story see great flood Florentine Codex 199

Index 425 Four Noble Truths of Buddhism 266 Frazer, James 16, 118 Fu Hao Tomb 281 – 282, 282 Functionalism 18 Gabriel (archangel) 376 Galilee 360 Gallery of Offerings 214, 216 Gallery of the Labyrinths 214 Gap Hole 103 Gargas Cave 117 Gautama, Siddhartha see Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) Geertz, Clifford 14 geoglyphs 222, 226 – 228, 227 geometric design 273 geometric rock art 43, 44, 81, 92 – 93 Gethsemane 367 Gezer (city) 350 Ghost Dance 11, 12 ghost fear 26 – 27 ghosts 26 – 27 Gilgamesh 321, 324 – 325, 325 Gimbutas, Marija 128 – 129 Giza 299, 300 – 301, 302 “Goat in the Thicket” 320 gods/goddesses: Arabian 372 – 374; Canaan 344 – 345; deified kings/ rulers 10, 281, 285 – 286, 288, 310, 314; Egyptian 302 – 303, 305, 306 – 310, 308, 313 – 314; Harappan 257; Hindu 244, 245, 257, 257; in hunter-gatherer cultures 64; Incan 233; Nazca 225 – 226; non-human origins of 27; Sumerian 321 – 322, 322, 326 Golden Bough, The (Frazer) 16 Goliath 349 – 350 Gorjanović-Kramberger, D. 56 Goyet Cave 56 Gran Dolina cave site 49 Gravettian period 115, 117 – 118 Great Basin rock art 43, 80 Great Bath at Mohenjo Daro 251, 252, 260 great flood 22, 324, 326, 336 Great Houses 177, 179, 180, 183 – 185 Great Kivas 185; see also kivas Great Pyramids at Giza 300 – 301, 302 Great Temple 224 Great Wall of China 10

Greek Bible 335, 358 – 361 Gwion 108 Gwion paintings 108 – 109, 110 Hadiths 376 Hall of Judgement 313, 314 hallucination-aiding products 38 Hambledon Hill 140, 144 hand stencils 100 – 101, 117 – 118, 117, 133 Harappan belief system: animal cult 253 – 255; female figurines 258, 259; fire altars 253; as goddess-based religion 258; gods/ goddesses of 257; household rituals 258; human-animal imagery in 255 – 256; Indus Unicorn figure 254 – 255; lustral baths 251; on meditation 257; in modern Hinduism 263; plant images 253; seals 253 – 257, 257; votive offerings 258 Harappan civilization: architectural features in 251; background 246 – 248; carved stones 258 – 260, 260; as craft makers 248; DK neighborhood 249; female figurines 258, 259; Great Bath 251, 252, 260; languages of 250; Late Harappan period 241; map of 242; market areas 248 – 250; Mature Harappan period 241; political system 250; religion of (see Harappan belief system); settlement structures 248 – 250; societal organization of 263 – 264; socioeconomic differentiation 248, 250; socioeconomic stratification in 261; writing system 250, 251 Harris, Marvin 19 – 20 Hathor 309 Hazor (city) 350 head jars 224 – 225, 226 head-taking practice 224 – 225 healing and health: Bedouin and 374; Bushmen groups 87 – 89, 98; ceremonies of 29, 35 – 36; Jesus’s miracles of 360, 368 – 369; kahin and 374; rituals 24, 37; by shamans 33 – 36, 38, 73, 88;

426 Index Stonehenge as destination for 150; trance dance for 90 healing rituals 24 Hebrew Bible: David and Goliath 349 – 350; first humans’ descendent generations 335 – 337; flood story 336; Genesis 335, 336 – 337; parting of the Red Sea 340; Samson and Delilah 349; Samuel 348, 349; shamanistic activities in 369; Ten Commandments 340 – 341, 349 Heel Stone 149 henge, defined 144; see also Avebury henge site; Stonehenge; woodhenges herbo-pharmacology 35 Herod Antipas 364 Herod the Great 351, 355 – 356, 364 Herodotus 310 Hierakonpolis city 296 – 298 hieroglyphs 200 High Bank Works 166 Hinduism: gods/goddesses 244, 245; Harappan religion as part of modern 263; household altars 244 – 245, 247; karma 243; in north Indian society 264; philosophical basis of 243 – 244; religious activities 244 – 246; as South Asia’s dominant religion 267; of today 262; varna system 242 – 243, 265; Vedic religion 243 – 244, 261, 264 historical particularism 17 Hohle Fels 124, 126 Hohokam culture 177 holy of holies 345 Homo antecessor 49 Homo heidelbergensis 49 Homo sapiens 49, 54 – 55, 115, 118 Hopeton Earthworks 166 Hopewell culture complex 164 – 169, 167 Hopi 185 Horn Shelter #2 78 – 79 Horrible Bird god 226 Horus 307, 309 household altars 244 – 245, 247, 306, 347 House of Youth 199 housing, in Neolithic Europe 139 – 141 Huaca del Luna 219, 220

Huaca del Sol 219 huacas 219, 224 Huascar 230 Huitzilopochtli 197, 201 human-animal imagery 255 – 256, 287 human sacrifices 205 – 211, 207, 234 – 236, 273 – 274, 276, 281 hunter-gatherer cultures: Ancestral Puebloans (see Ancestral Puebloans); animism and 64; animistic religion of 7 – 8, 26; of the Arctic 71 – 76, 71; belief systems 63 – 66; European Upper Paleolithic 115; of North Asia 66 – 68; of Paleoamerican period 76 – 81; totemistic elements of 64; see also complex hunter-gatherer societies Hunter’s Art 118 Hunter’s Cave 101, 104 Hunting Magic 118 Hyksos 338 – 339 ice age animals 119 Ice Maiden 235, 236, 237 ideograms 200 Igloolik Island 73, 75 Illapa 233 Imhotep 300 imitative magic 16 Inanna/Ishtar 321, 325, 326, 332 Inca Empire: calendar 233; Chimú state 229 – 230, 235; Inti Raymi Festival 233, 234; Machu Picchu 234; map of 229; mit’a system 231; origins of 231; panacas 230 – 231, 233 – 234; political system 234; recordkeeping 231, 232; religion of 233 – 236; resettlement practices 231; respect for elites 237; rulership 230 – 231; sacrifice activity 205 – 211, 207, 216, 234 – 236; tunic 232 India: caste system 242 – 243, 262 – 264; Hinduism (see Hinduism); kinship relationships 264; languages of 241 – 242; societal structure 242 – 243, 264 – 265; socioeconomic divide between varnas 243; varnas 242 – 243, 265; Vedic religion 243 – 244,

Index 427 261, 263 – 264; see also Harappan civilization Indo-Aryans: animal sacrifice and 262; arrival of 261 – 262; background 261 – 262; caste system 262; deities of 262; kinship relationships 261; languages of 241; as nomadic pastoralists 263 Indus Unicorn figure 254 – 255 Indus Valley Civilization see Harappan civilization Inti 233 Inti Raymi Festival 233, 234 inua 72 – 73 Inuit cultures: animism of 72; predecessor of (see Thule culture); religion/ belief systems 8; Sedna (Sea Woman) 64, 72; shamanism, practice of 72 – 73; shaman and wife 72 Inuksuit 73, 73 irrigation agriculture 218, 315 Isaac 336 – 337 Ishmael 375 Ishtar see Inanna/Ishtar Isis 308, 309 Islam 374 – 378; see also pre-Islamic Arabia Island of the Sun 228 Israelites: Canaanites and 344 – 347; conquering Canaan 341 – 344; divided monarchy 353 – 354; in Egypt 337 – 339; Exodus 337 – 340; monotheism and 348; period of wandering 340; Philistines and 347 – 348, 349; political structure 348 – 349; polytheism 344, 348; rejection of House of Solomon 353; rulers 349 – 350; worshipping the Ark 341; Yahweh temple 350 – 351, 352, 353, 356 Jacob 337 Jericho (city) 342 Jeroboam 353 Jerusalem: churches commemorating Jesus’s life 367; David’s battle for 350; excavations at 367; Jesus and disciples in 361; Nebuchadnezzar’s march on 351;

Roman garrison in 356; Roman Prefects assigned to 356 – 357; Zealots holding 358 Jerusalem Temple 350 – 351, 352, 353, 356 Jesus Christ: archaeology of 364 – 369; baptism 360; birth 358 – 360, 364 – 365; disciples of 365, 366; Essenes and 363 – 364; execution 367; healing abilities 360, 368 – 369; in Jerusalem 361; ministry 360 – 361, 365; as miracle performer 360; parables 360 – 361; Qumran community and 364; resurrection 367 – 368; tomb 367 Jewish Revolt 361, 363 Jewish sectarianism 357 – 358 Jiangzhai village 271, 272 Jia tripod 277 jinn 374 Jivaro 34 John the Baptist 360 joking kin 87 Joshua 342 Jua vessels 277 Judaea: Herod the Great as ruler of 351, 355; Jewish sectarianism in 357 – 358; map of 356; under Roman rule 356 – 357; Syrian governor’s control over 355 Judah 354 Judaism: behavior code 340; Essenes and 357 – 358; framework structure for 340 – 341; practice of 357; sects of 357 – 358; worship methods 340 Ka’aba temple 374, 376 kahin 374 Kalahari Bushmen: collective religions of 87; culture names 83; description of 84; diet 86; as egalitarian 86 – 88; encampment drawing 85; hunters of 84 – 86, 86; initiation ceremonies 87 – 89; kinship system 87; map of 84; rain, importance of 43; rock art images 43, 90 – 93; shamans of 32 – 35, 87 – 89; trance dance 87 – 89; women of 86 Kalibangan site 253 karma 243

428 Index Kebara Cave 57 Kenoyer, Jonathon M. 253 Kerlescan megaliths 142 – 143 Kermario menhir complex 142 Kfar Nahum synagogue 366; see also Capernaum Khadija 375 Khafajeh 329 Khafre, King of Egypt 301 – 302 Khoisan languages 83 Khufu, King of Egypt 300 – 301 Khufu complex 301 Killer Whale deity 226 Kimberley region 108 – 111 Kimberley Stout Figures 108 kinship relationships: of Australian Aboriginals 96, 97; burials showing examples of 272; in Chacoan culture 184 – 185, 189; in Chinese society 270, 272, 278; of England’s Neolithic inhabitants 144, 146; of Hopewell residents 165, 168; in India 264; of Indo-Aryan culture 261; Kalahari Bushmen 87; in Neanderthal culture 24, 52 – 53; patrilineal 261; in Shang dynasty 281, 289 Kish dynastic lineage 330 kivas 181, 185 – 186, 186, 187 – 188, 187 Krapina site 56 Krishna 244 Kshatriyas varna 243, 265 Kua Bushmen camp 85 Kuniya Woman story 100 Kuntur Wasi 217 Kwakiutl shaman 36 – 37 La Chapelle fossils 51, 57 Lachish (city) 350 Lady Hao tomb 281 – 282, 282 La Ferrassie cave 57 – 59, 58 laibon (shaman-diviner) 35 Lake Mungo region 93 – 95 Lake Texcoco 193, 197 Lake Titicaca 228 Land of Canaan see Canaan Lanzón cult 217 – 218 Lanzón Gallery 214 – 215 Lanzón statue 214 – 215, 216 Lascaux Cave 119, 120 Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) 68

Late Harappan period 241 La Venta 190 Layton, Robert 40 Lee, Richard 87 Le Menec menhir complex 142 Lepenski Vir 134 – 138, 135 Leroi-Gourhan, André 120 – 121 Les Pradelles 56 Les Trois Fréres cave 42 Levant 335, 355 Lévi-Strauss, Claude 18 – 19, 23, 36 – 37 Lewis-Williams, David J. 92 – 93, 121 – 122 Little Blair Valley 44 long barrows 152 – 153 longhouses 74 Longshan culture 273 – 274, 280 lustral baths 251 Ma’adi 296 Ma’at 308 – 309, 314 Machu Picchu 234 Madjedbebe Malakunanja 93 Magdalenian period 115 Magliabechiano Codex 206 Maidum 300 maize agriculture 85, 169, 178 – 180 male figurines 258, 331 Malinowski, Bronislaw 18, 22 – 23 Mama-Quilla (”Mother Moon”) 233 Manāt 372 – 374, 373 “Mandate of Heaven” philosophy 288 – 291 Manishtushu 332 – 333 mansins 33 Marching Bears Mound Group 163, 164 Marduk 321 Marlborough Mound 146 Marshack, Alexander 126 Mary Magdalene, Saint 365 Masada 358, 359 masks 73 – 76, 75, 283, 286, 287, 311 Mature Harappan period 241 Mauryan Kingdom 267 Mecca 371, 374 – 375, 377 Medina (city) 376 Medinet Habu 306, 307 meditation 257, 263 megaliths 140, 141 – 143; see also monuments Megiddo (city) 350

Index 429 Menes 298 menhirs 141 – 143, 142 Menkaure, King of Egypt 301 Merneptah Stele 339 – 340, 339 Mesa Verde region 179 Mesoamerica: Aztecs (see Aztec Empire); in Early Dynastic period 316 – 317; irrigation agriculture 315; map of 192, 316; Olmecs 190 – 193; Teotihuacan 193 – 195; Uruk period 315 Mesopotamia 315, 319, 321 Mexico City 212; see also Tenochtitlan Miclantecuhtli 195 Middle Woodland period 165 Migdal site 365 Mimi art 101, 109 – 111 Mississippian culture: agricultural symbolism 174; appropriation of agricultural cult 175 – 176; burials 172; Cahokia (see Cahokia site); cosmologies 173 – 175; elite class 175 – 176; nodal households 170; outlying communities 170; power consolidation 175; quadripartite cosmology 173 – 175; settlement structures 169 – 170; social stratification 172; temple towns 170 Mississippi Valley 159 mit’a system 231 Moab 341 – 342 moai statues 8, 9 Moche culture 218 – 222, 220, 223, 237 Moctezoma I 200 Moctezoma II 200, 201, 212 modern anthropology 17 Mogollon culture 177 Mohenjo Daro 249, 251, 258 – 260 Monks Mound 170, 171, 173 monotheism 27, 348 Monte Circeo cave site 55 – 56 monuments: in Australia 99 – 101; Avebury henge site 144 – 146, 145; Carnac menhirs 141 – 143, 142; causewayed enclosures 139 – 141; long barrows 152 – 153; purposes of 153 – 155; Stonehenge (see Stonehenge); see also megaliths Morgan, Lewis Henry 16 Moses 340, 342

mother-goddess-based religion 127, 128 – 129 mother-goddess figurines 127, 128 – 129 Motza site 351 mound-building cultures: Adena 162 – 163; burials 168 – 169, 172; Cahokia site 169 – 170; cremations 168; earthworks locations, importance of 166 – 167; effigy mounds 163 – 164; foraging-based economy of 159; Hopewell culture complex 164 – 169; map of 160; Marching Bear Group 163, 164; Mississippian period (see Mississippian culture); Monks Mound 170, 171, 173; Poverty Point 159 – 162, 161; ritual behaviors 163; Serpent Mound 163, 164; trade networks 162 Mount Nevado Ampato 235 – 236, 237 Mousterian tools 52 Mt. Tlaloc 204 Muhammad 370, 374 – 376, 377 – 378 mummification 310 – 312 music, accompanying shaman’s work 38 Muslim families 6 Muslims 351 mythologies, role within society 22 – 23 Nanahuatzin 203 Nanna/Sin 322, 329, 329, 332 Naram-Sin 333, 333 Narmer Palette 297 – 298 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 6 Native American sites 6 nature rituals 24 Nazareth 364 Nazca culture: agricultural fertility and 226; agricultural management 223 – 224; ancestor veneration 225; Cahuachi as capital of 224; deities of 225 – 226; drainage systems 223 – 224; feasting activities 224; geoglyphs 222, 226 – 228, 227; head-taking practice 224 – 225; huacas 219, 224; overview 222 – 223; pilgrimage destinations 228; warrior with trophy head 225 Neanderthal “flower” burial 59, 60

430 Index Neanderthals: afterlife, belief in 61 – 62; ancestor veneration 61 – 62; artist reconstruction of 52; burials 57 – 62; cannibalism and 55 – 56; communication skills 53; diet 52; extinction of 53; fossil evidence 51 – 52; group hunting 53; hand stencils created by 118; healthcare 61; interpersonal violence 56; kinship patterns 24, 52 – 53; misguided views of 50 – 51; Neanderthal Man illustration 51; overview 50 – 53; physical features of 51 – 52; ritual behaviors 53 – 54, 56, 57; self-ornamentation 54; site map 50; stone tool kits of 52; symbolic beliefs 54 – 55 Nebuchadnezzar 351 Neolithic period: ancestor veneration 155; animal domestication 128, 131, 139; Çatalhöyük 131 – 134, 131, 132, 133; changes during 128; in China 270 – 274; houses in 139; Lepenski Vir 134 – 138; plant cultivation and domestication 128, 131 netherworld 312 neuropsychological model 43 – 44, 93, 121 – 122, 273 New Age religions 11 new archaeology 20 New Guinea 110 New Testament see Greek Bible Nile floodplain 295 nirvana 266 nomadic pastoralism 95 – 96, 261, 263, 264, 343, 370 North America: Arctic hunter-gatherers 71 – 76, 71; Beringian Standstill 69 – 70; Paleoamerican sites 77; populating 68 – 71 North Pyramid 300 n/um 88, 89, 91 Oglakhty site 68 Ohio River Valley 162 Ojibway shamans 40 Old Bering Sea cultures 76 Old Man of La Chapelle 57, 60 – 61 Old Testament see Hebrew Bible Olmec head 191

Olmecs 190 – 193 oracle bones 274, 280, 281, 284, 284, 285 oral traditions 65 Osiris 298 – 299, 307 – 308, 309, 312, 314 Pachacutec 230 Pachamama 233 painted art 89, 101, 106 – 111 Paiute 11 Paleoamerican hunter-gatherers 76 – 81 Paleoamerican period 76 – 78, 80, 159 Palestine 356, 369 “parting of the Red Sea” narrative 340 patrilocal residence 52 – 53 Pavlov site 122 Peaceful Infiltration model 342 – 343 peace pipes see effigy pipes periodic rituals 24 Persia 370 Peru 213; see also Nazca culture Peter (Jesus’ disciple) 365, 366 petroglyphs 42, 68, 103 – 104 pharaohs 303, 305, 309 – 310, 313, 314, 339 Pharisees 357 Philistine pottery 348 Philistines 344, 347 – 349, 354 Pilbara region 102, 103 pilgrimage destinations: Arabian temples as 373 – 374; Cahuachi 224; Egyptian temples as 305; Ka’aba temple 374, 376; Mecca 376, 377; Nazca geoglyphs and 228; Poverty Point 161; Pueblo Bonito 183; Pyramid of the Sun 195; Stonehenge as 150 pipal tree 253, 254, 257, 263 Pithom (city) 339 pit houses 178 – 179 “Pit of Bones” 49, 50 plant cultivation and domestication: of the Adena 162; in ancient Peru 213; in Archaic period 159; at Çatalhöyük 131, 134; in Europe 116, 139; in Hopewell culture 165; maize agriculture 85, 169, 178 – 180, 191 – 192; in Neolithic period 128, 131; in predynastic Egypt 295; in Yangshao period 271 platform pipes see effigy pipes

Index 431 polytheism: defined 27; Israelites and 344, 348; Mesopotamians and 321; Philistines and 347; in pre-Islamic Arabia 370, 372; in Vedic religion 244, 263 Pontius Pilate 356 – 357, 361 portable art 123 – 126 pottery: Adena 162; Chaco Canyon 179, 181, 181; Harappan 248, 261; Mississippian 172; Moche 218, 219; Nazca 222, 224, 228; Philistine 347, 348; Yangshao 273 Poverty Point 159 – 162, 161 prayer sticks 184 pre-Clovis model 71 Pre-Dorset cultures 71 pre-Islamic Arabia 370 – 374 pre-Neanderthal ritual behavior 49 Price, Barbara J. 209 – 210 Priest King carved statue 258 – 260, 260 priests/priestesses: Aztec 205; description of 28; of Egypt 305; identifying 30; role of 28 – 29; see also shamans processual archaeology 20 – 21 profane-sacred dichotomy 17 Proto-Shiva seal 256 – 257, 256 public rituals 8, 190 – 192, 205, 228, 350, 372 pueblo, defined 177 – 178 Pueblo Bonito 181 – 184, 182, 187 – 189, 187 Pueblo Del Arroyo, Great House ruins at 180 purification: in Egyptian death ritual 310; by fire 262; by water 244 – 245, 251, 260 – 261, 262 pyramid cities 304 Pyramid of the Moon 193 Pyramid of the Sun 193, 194, 195 pyramids of Egypt: architect of 300; Bent Pyramid 300, 301; Djoser’s Step Pyramid 299 – 300, 300; function of 303 – 304; at Giza 299, 300 – 301, 302; Khufu’s pyramid 300 – 301; labor force 304 – 305; at Maidum 300; North Pyramid 300; pyramid cities 304; at Saqqara 299 – 300; Sneferu’s pyramids 300 – 301; Sphinx 301 – 302, 302 Pyramid Texts 312 – 313

Qajartalik site 75 – 76 Qin Dynasty 10, 289 Qin emperor’s tomb 290 Quesalid (Kwakiutl shaman) 36 – 37 Quetzalcoatl 193, 201, 202, 202 quipus (recordkeeping) 231, 232 Qumran community 358, 362, 363 Qu’ran 376 Quraysh tribe 371, 374 rain animals 89, 90 Rainbow Serpent 64, 106 – 108 rainmaking rituals 89 Ramesses (city) 339 Ramesses II 339 Ramesses III 306, 307 Rappaport, Roy 15, 18 Ra/Ra-Atum 302, 303, 305, 307, 313 recordkeeping 203, 231, 232, 322 – 323, 337 “Red Sea, parting of” narrative 340 Rehoboam 353 religion/belief systems: archaeological pursuit of a culture’s 65; of Australian Aboriginals 96 – 98; culture’s economy as component of 8; defined 14 – 15; environment and 7 – 8; evolutionary approaches to 16 – 17; explanations for existence of 14 – 15; functionalist interpretation of 18; manipulating humans with 8; as monotheistic 27, 348; multi-layered cosmos 67; origins of 15 – 20; performance of ritual and 15; as polytheistic (see polytheism); of pre-literate cultures 18; sacred-profane dichotomy 17; social control and 9 – 10; societal stability and 8; as tool for change 10 – 12 religious rebellion 11 religious specialists, types of 28 – 30; see also priests/priestesses; shamans; sorcerers; witches Renfrew, Colin 21 revitalization movements 11 Rice, Patricia C. 126 Rig Veda 243, 261 Rimush 332 rites of passage 19

432 Index ritual behaviors: of Australian Aboriginals 93; in burials 57 – 62; of Chinese culture 289; of mound builders 163; of Neanderthals 53 – 54, 56, 57; in the Netherlands 12; of Paleoamerican period 77, 78, 80; for pre-Neanderthals 49; Shaman’s Tubes used in 74; South African rock art and 93 ritual feasting see feasting activities ritual purity 19, 374 ritual(s): animals in, importance of 279, 291; in archaeological record 23 – 25; artistic rendering of 25; cannibalism in 208 – 210; defined 23; effigy pipes 162 – 163; frequency of 24; good luck ceremonies 34; for healing and health 24, 37; human sacrifices 273 – 274; identifying locals of 25; of Moche culture 221 – 222; mythological components of 23 – 24; public (see public rituals); purification 244 – 245, 251, 260 – 261, 262; as situational 24; of the Tesmbaga 18; tobacco use in 162 – 163, 167; types of 24; see also ritual behaviors; sacrifice activity Roberts, David 302 rock art: animal imagery on 43; anthropomorphs 41 – 43, 42, 66; in Australia (see Australian rock art); dating methods 83; of Drakensberg region 91; ethnographic analogy of 44; everyday activities displayed in 90; geometric design 43, 44, 81, 92 – 93; of Great Basin region 43, 80, 80; human-animal connection in 41, 42; interpreting 41 – 44, 66, 80 – 81, 82; Kalahari Bushman 90 – 93; painted 89, 91; at Qajartalik site 75 – 76; religious significance of 40 – 41; shamans and 40 – 44, 65, 90; of Southern Africa 89 – 93; therianthropes 41, 42, 66; trance dance 92; of Upper Paleolithic 116, 117 – 122, 117; Western view of 82; X-ray style figures 41 – 43, 42

Roman Empire: Levant as part of 355; map of 356 Romans 351 Royal Tombs of Ur 320, 320 sacred landscapes, perceptions of 65 sacred objects, proper treatment of 6 – 7 sacred places, as important targets of study 21 – 22 sacred-profane dichotomy 17 sacrifice activity: animal 262, 281, 374; in Aztec religion 208 – 211; of children 206 – 207; at Erlitou palace 276; by fire 262; in Incan culture 205 – 211, 207, 216, 234 – 236; of Moche culture 221 – 222; in Shang dynasty 281 – 282; see also human sacrifices Sadducees 357, 361, 367 Saff God 228 Sahul 93, 110 – 111 Salisbury Plain 146 Sama Veda 243 Samburu culture 35 Samson and Delilah 349 San Juan basin 179 San Lorenzo 190 Sanskrit 261 Sapa Inca see Inca Empire Saqqara 299 – 300 Sargon the Great 321, 330 – 333, 333 Sassanian empire 370 Saul 349 seals 317 – 318, 318 Sea of Galilee 365 Sea Peoples 343, 343, 347 – 348 Sedna (Sea Woman) 64, 72 self-hypnosis 38 – 40 Semitic language 332 Serpent Mound 163, 164 Seth 309 Shakti 244, 257 shamanic state of consciousness (SSC) 38; see also altered states of consciousness (ASC) shamanism: of the Bedouin 374; in Inuit cultures 72 – 73; overview 64 – 65 shamans: Aboriginal 98; in archaeological record 40 – 45; artifacts 45; burial sites 78 – 79; categories

Index 433 of 89; characteristics of 28; costume 38, 39; divination tasks of 34 – 35; as dual gender 33; female 33, 98; as healer 33 – 36, 38, 73, 88; identifying 30, 65; initiation rites 98; as mediums 34; of the Olmec 192; overview 31 – 32; as performers 35 – 36; Quesalid (Kwakiutl shaman) 36 – 37; rainmaking ritual 89; rock art and 40 – 44; role of 28 – 29, 33 – 36; selection process for 28, 32 – 33; self-hypnosis of 38 – 40; in Sora culture 33; spirit helpers of 37 – 38; successes of 36 – 37; tools for 37 – 40; trance healer 88; trance journey 38 – 40; transformative abilities of 76; Tungus shaman 32; see also priests/priestesses Shaman’s Teeth 74 Shaman’s Tubes 74 Shang Di “high lord” 281, 285 – 286 Shang Dynasty: animals in, importance of 279, 291; bronze technology 283; bronze vessels 287; deities of 285 – 286; divination 283 – 285; divine power of ruling class 281, 285 – 286, 288, 289 – 291; end of 288 – 289; Erlitou period (see Erlitou culture); feasting activities 283; kinship system 281, 289; Longshan period 280; oracle bones 284, 284, 285; religion/ belief systems 279, 283 – 288, 284, 291; royal tombs 281 – 283; social stratification 281; turtle plastron 284; Yanshi settlement 278; Zhengzhou settlement 279; Zi lineage and 285 – 288; Zi royal clan 281, 285 – 288 Shanidar Cave 59 – 60 Shark Monster 191 Shiva 244, 245, 246 shrine rooms 131, 132 Shudra varna 243 Siberian region 34, 66 – 68, 67 Siberian shamanism 33 Siddhartha Gautama see Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) Silap Inua 72

Silbury Hill 146 Sima de los Huesos 49, 50 Simple Figurative Style 101 Sinai Desert 340 Sipán 217 – 221 site looting 5 Slaughter Stone 149 slavery 198, 206, 211, 305, 337 – 339, 375 Sloan site 78 Smoking Mirror 21, 202, 207 Sneferu 300 – 301 social control: through religion 9 – 10; witchcraft and sorcery as 29 social rebellion 11 social stratification: in Chacoan culture 183 – 185; in Chavín de Huántar culture 217 – 218; in Early Dynastic Mesopotamia 319; in Erlitou state 278; in Harappan settlements 261; as hereditary 281; in Longshan culture 273 – 274; in Mississippian culture 172; in Moche culture 219; in Neolithic period 141; religion’s role in 278; in Shang dynasty 281; Sumerian 319 societal stability 8 sociocultural anthropology 5 Solecki, Ralph 59 Solomon, King of Israel 350, 353 Solutrean period 115 Sora culture 33, 38 sorcerers 29, 30; see also witches South Asia 241 – 242; see also Harappan civilization; Hinduism; India; Indo-Aryans Spaniards 211 – 212 Sphinx at Giza 301 – 302, 302 spirit helpers 37 – 38 spirits 26 Spotted Cat god 226 “Standard List of Professions” 319 Station Stones 149 statues: of Buddha 267; Canaanite 346 – 347; female genitalia represented in 138; Priest King 258 – 260, 260; votive statues 330, 331; at the White Temple 329; see also artifacts; carved stones; figurines stencils see hand stencils

434 Index Step Pyramid 299 – 300, 300 stone cairns 73, 73 stone carved statues see carved stones Stonehenge: builders of 151 – 152; building stages 147, 148 – 149; as a healing destination 150; history of 146; interpretations of 149 – 150; materials used for 148 – 149; orientation 146, 149; photo of 147; sarsen stones of 149 structuralism 18 – 19 stupas 267, 268 Sugpiaq peoples 76 Sumerian civilization: administrative class 318; animal domestication 317; cosmology 321 – 322; craft production 317 – 318; cylinder seals 317 – 318, 318; deities of 321 – 322, 322; emergence of 315; gods/goddesses 321 – 322, 322, 326; grave goods 320 – 321; leadership 319 – 320; literacy 324; political structure 319; priest kings 319; public festivals 333 – 334; recordkeeping system 322 – 323; religion/belief systems 333 – 334; Royal Tombs of Ur 320, 320; semi-divine nature of rulers 326; social stratification 319; socioeconomic hierarchy of classes 318 – 319; temples of 326 – 330, 333 – 334; writing system 322 – 326 Sumerian King List (SKL) 326, 333 summer solstice 146, 149 Sun Dagger 186 supernatural beings 26 – 27 supernatural world, access points to 64 symbolic anthropology 19 symbolic beliefs 21, 54 – 55, 94 – 95, 131, 146 symbolism: animal 80, 217; contained within myths 23; cultural materialism and 19 – 20 sympathetic magic 16 Talab (Arabian god) 372 Taosi settlement 274 Tecuciztecatl 203 Tel es-Safi (city) 349 – 350 Tel Qasile site 347

Tel Rekhesh site 365 Temple of Quetzalcoatl 193, 195, 196 Temple of the Moon 203 Temple of the Sun 203 Temple Scroll see Dead Sea Scrolls temple towns 170 temporal perceptions 65 – 66 Ten Commandments 340 – 341, 349; see also Ark of the Covenant Tenochtitlan 197, 198, 212 Teotihuacan 193 – 195, 203 Tesmbaga 18 Tezcatlipoca “Smoking Mirror” 201, 202, 207 therianthropes 41, 42, 66, 92, 120 third eye of consciousness 244, 246, 260, 263 Thoth 309, 314 three-layered world cosmology 191 Thule culture 71 – 72, 76 Tiamat 321 time, perceptions of 65 – 66; see also calendars Tiwanaku 228 Tlaloc 195, 206 Tonatiuh 205 totemism 17, 96, 134 Tovar Codex 198, 201 trance dance 35, 87 – 92, 88 trance states 34, 38 – 40, 43 – 44, 93, 167; see also altered states of consciousness (ASC) tricksters 26, 87, 374 trilithon horseshoe 149 Trinkhaus, Erik 60 Trobriand fishermen 18 trophy heads 224 Tshwa trance healer 88 Tungus shaman 32 Turner, Victor 19 turtle plastron 284 Tutankhamun’s tomb 3, 4, 303 Tylor, Edward B. 16, 64 Uluru monolith 98, 99 – 100 unilinear evolutionism 16 Upanishads 243 – 244, 263 Upper Paleolithic (UP) cultures: ancestor veneration 121, 129; figurines in 123 – 128, 124; innovations of 115 – 116; rock art 116,

Index 435 117 – 122, 117 (see also cave art); secret societies in 121; see also European Upper Paleolithic cultures Ur: Abraham and 336; Akkadian empire at 330; elite class 334; patron god of 322, 332; temple city 329; tombs of 320 – 321 Uruk: Eanna Precinct 327 – 328, 327, 328; Gilgamesh as king of 321, 324 – 325, 325; patron deities of 321; political structure 316 – 317; population of 317; prominence of 315 – 316; Sargon’s conquer of 330; temples 326 – 329, 327 Uruk period 315, 318 Ut-napishtim 324 Valley of the Kings 303 varnas 242 – 243, 265 Vedic religion 243 – 244, 261, 263 – 264 Veisha varna 243 Venus figurines 126 Viracocha 230, 231, 233 Vishnu 244, 245 votive statues 330, 331 vulture wall paintings 133 Wanjina paintings 108, 109 Wape of New Guinea 8 Wari 228 – 229 water purification 244 – 245, 251, 260 – 261, 262 were-jaguar 191 Western Imperialism 15 – 16

Western Zhou Dynasty 288 – 289 West Kennet long barrow 152 – 153 White Temple at Uruk 326 – 327, 327, 329 Wiccan religion 29 – 30 Willendorf 124, 126 Windmill Hill 144 winter solstice 149, 233 witches 29, 30; see also sorcerers woodhenges 171 – 172 Woolley, Leonard 320 Wovoka peoples 11 writing systems 200, 322 – 326; see also recordkeeping Wu, ruler of Haojing city 288 Xibeigang royal cemetery 281, 282, 283 Xipe Totec 201, 208, 209, 210 X-ray style figures 41 – 43, 42 Yahweh 340 – 341, 348, 349 Yahweh temple 350 – 351, 352, 353, 356 Yajur Veda 243 Yangshao culture 271 – 274, 273, 289 Yanshi settlement 275, 276, 278 Yathrib (city) 376 Yeuatlicue 206 Yinxu center 280 – 281, 280 Yinxu royal cemetery 281, 282, 283 yogic meditation 263 Zealots 358, 359 Zhengzhou settlement 279 Zhou Dynasty 288 – 289 Zi royal clan 281, 285 – 288 Zoroastrianism 370