• Home
Abstracts
Dr.
Alessandra Lopez y Royo
AHRB Research Centre for Crosscultural Music and Dance Performance
School of Oriental and African Studies
University of London
The reinvention of Odissi classical dance as a temple ritual.
The great myth of much Indian classical dance is that it was a Hindu
temple ritual, performed by a special class of women known as devadasis.
This is particularly evident in the case of Odissi dance, a classical
form from eastern India (re)created in the 1940s/1950s.
This paper revisits the concept of dance as a ritual religious activity
and fully questions the reinvention of Odissi classical dance as an age
old temple ritual. Odissi classical dance is a reconstruction achieved
in post-independence India, an archaeological project of restoration and
reinvention. To ensure recognition and status, continuities have been
sought with dancing activities going back to the pre-Christian era, with
reference to temple sculpture found in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain cave temples
in order to validate the dance and bestow it antiquity. References have
been made to the Indus Valley culture and the now famous statuette of
a woman said to be dancing and portrayed in a pose resembling a tribhanga,
implying that temple dancing and Odissi in particular was practiced millennia
ago, possibly using the same dance techniques of today. The ritualistic
dimension of the dance has been exaggerated in all accounts of Odissi
to such an extent as to obfuscate its entertainment value and its earlier
connection with 20th century theatre. By crystallising the perception
of the dance, the emphasis on ritual has also hampered the engagement
of Odissi dancers with a reality of conflict, providing social commentary
and critique through their work, quite unlike the situation which can
be observed in the context of other Indian classical dance genres, such
as bharatanatyam, where dancers seem to be able to push the boundaries
of their form and explore new contents.
Archaeology has been instrumental in creating the myth of centuries old
sacred ritual dance activities in the temples of Orissa. The focus on
the ritualistic Œdance¹ activities of the Jagannath temple in
Puri has contributed to a one sided view of Odissi fostering a narrative
which through ascribing an almost mythical status to the maharis (Jagannath
temple dancers), has reduced them to symbols. Through such endorsements,
Odissi dance has been exoticised to an extreme . To some extent all human
activities could be classed as ritual or ritualistic, thus a ritual dimension
to Odissi is not being denied; however the exclusive attribution of ritual
value to the dance needs to be interrogated and this is most relevant
to its contemporary context.
Christine Hastorf, University of
California, Berkeley
South American (Andean) ritual- in landscape, in architecture, in passage,
and in consumption
In many ways the Andes of South America are still known today for their
rituals. Hiking the Inka trails through breathtaking scenery or flying
over the Nasca lines suggest how ritual processions marked the landscape,
as they still do today in many parts of the highlands. These ethnographic
links have aided archaeologists to infer such past ritual events as they
blinker their views of other pasts. Most archaeological ritual discussions
tend to focus on the political impact of the architecture and the remains.
Less tied to the present yet very powerful in the archaeological Andean
ritual discussion is the nested structural enclosure, found in both the
highland and the coastal traditions. Ritual constructions are the earliest
permanent architecture in the highlands. Their early evidence suggests
a communal orientation that shifts towards increasingly layered secrecy
for select members of the community over time. Enclosures and mountain-like
mounds dominate the Andean ritual architecture, informing us of the ritual
values gained from the landscape. On the coast, too, permanent ceremonial
buildings begin early and prominently as well as continuing throughout
the prehistoric sequence. The nested and enclosed qualities of these structures
have suggested a range of interpretations to scholars, but politic-economic
interpretations have dominated most discussions. Feasting evidence from
plants, faunal remains and ceramics have been linked to community rituals
in more recent discussions. These interpretations have opened up the discussion
to include a small-scale communality in conjunction with a long-lived
memory. Domestic rituals have not been approached or sought in any systematic
way in the Andean research. The earth and sky spirits clearly were important
to the Andean people, channeling power as the people tried to control
some of this living force for their own well being. These are illustrated
in the plants that were included in their rituals. While presenting some
of the ritual evidence in the Andean region, I will also discuss various
interpretations of these material remains and how they have hindered and
helped our thinking about the past.
Lars
Fogelin, University of Michigan,
1109 Geddes Ave.
Ann Arbor MI 48109
History, Ethnography, and Essentialism: The Archaeology of Ritual
in South Asia
Understandings of ancient ritual in South Asia have long been dependant
upon historical and ethnographic sources. In most cases, archaeologists
have explained past ritual through reference to particular passages in
the extensive religious literature of South Asia, and/or ethnographic
accounts of ritual practices in contemporary 'village India'. With some
exceptions, historical and ethnographic sources have been applied uncritically.
When employing historical sources, archaeologists have ignored that these
texts were often highly scholastic products of the religious elite. As
for 'village India' as a source for understandings of past ritual, this
rests upon the fallacy of evolutionary survivals, even when phrased in
the more modern anthropological language of cultural memory or longue
duree. That said, the misuses of history and ethnography are not the most
serious problems underlying archaeological research on ritual in South
Asia.
More fundamentally, most research on ritual in South Asia is essentialist
in orientation, using individual archaeological indicators to identify
the origin of practices that resemble some element in either historical
or ethnographic sources. By examining these elements in isolation, archaeological
statements on past ritual become little more than factoids--decontextualized
statements concerning the origin of modern religious practices. At best,
this approach is uninformative about past ritual. At worst, these archaeological
claims serve as ammunition in modern sectarian conflict. To illustrate
this point I will review the claims made concerning one common motif found
on Indus Valley seals, a figure seated in a cross-legged position. From
the discovery of this motif in the 1940's, archaeologists have repeatedly
identified this figure as an early representation of the god Shiva. I
will argue that the identification of 'proto-Shiva' has not led to any
substantial increase in the understanding of Indus Valley religion, nor
could it. Instead, this identification has mostly been employed by Hindu
nationalists to legitimize their political agenda.
In response to the essentialism of existing archaeological research, I
argue for a contextual approach to the study of past ritual in South Asia--using
historical and ethnographic sources to inform, rather than replace, rigorous
archaeological investigations. Rather than study the origin of modern
gods, archaeologists should focus on the ways that ritual articulates
with other aspects of past society. This can only be accomplished by the
careful analysis of assemblages of material remains of past ritual practice.
I illustrate this approach through my studies of an Early Historic Period
(c. 300 B.C.E.- 300 C.E.) Buddhist mortuary landscape in Andhra Pradesh,
India. Through careful investigations of specific mortuary features, and
the spatial relationships between features, my research identified significant
differences between Early Historic Period mortuary practices, those described
in early Buddhist texts, and modern Buddhist mortuary practices. Further,
these differences demonstrate that an ambivalent relationship existed
between Buddhist monks and local populations that directly contradicts
descriptions of this relationship in Buddhist religious texts. In contrast
to the essentialism that orients much of the archaeology of early ritual
in South Asia, a contextual approach allows for differences in past ritual
to be explored.
Colin Renfrew, Department of Arhcaeology,
University of Cambridge
PROBLEMS IN THEORISING AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF RITUAL:
THE AEGEAN CASE
I. MOTIVATION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGIST
The anthropologist or historian who is interested in culture change over
the
long term must take account of what might be described (perhaps in rather
idealist language) as the ‘motivating forces’ within society,
which seem to contribute in some cases to the foundations of social order.
In many cases these forces may be described as religious, or at least
they have a religious dimension. A visit to those monumentally impressive
ceremonial centres at Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico or to Karnak
in Egypt illustrates the scale of the outlay both of labour and of symbolic
investment which can be involved, although the boundary between religious
and social would be difficult to determine. Clearly these motivating forces
are founded upon belief systems which may be difficult of access to the
archaeologist. The archaeologist can in general, in the absence of written
records, approach belief only through behaviour, although in favourable
cases iconography may also offer a profitable line of access. The notion
of ‘ritual’, the focus of our symposium, certainly encompasses
much religious behaviour, although as Kyriakidis rightly emphasised in
his doctoral dissertation (Kyriakidis 2002), the concept extends more
widely to categories of activity which are not specifically predicated
upon religious belief or the practice of cult. It can however be argued
that most or all ritual, whether or not pertaining to religious practice,
is indeed directed towards powerful motivating forces, including secular
forces. Its investigation is thus of considerable interest to the archaeologist.
II. THE CENTRAL PROBLEM
The central problem is that one is seeking to understand the influence
and effects of a belief system which one can study only indirectly. The
belief system is internal to the individual in society and is shared by
individuals within the society so that it may be regarded as a collective
belief system, although no-doubt with variations among groups and individuals
within the society. The belief system influences behaviour (and is probably
not of very great significance if it does not indeed do so). The problem
for the archaeologist is first to find the material traces of that behaviour,
and second to make inferences as to which aspects of that behaviour are
indicative of the belief system. That is a complex undertaking, especially
since symbolic features of behaviour may be embedded within practices
which are in part purely functional and utilitarian.
III. RITUAL, TIME AND ASSEMBLY
The archaeological recognition of ritual can be attempted only if some
definition of ritual can be agreed. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary offers
the definition of the adjectival form as ‘Pertaining or relating
to, connected with rites’. And a ‘rite’ is there defined
as ‘A formal procedure or act in a religious or other solemn observance’.
The meaning is amplified by the definition of ‘observance’
as ‘The action or practice of observing (a law, duty, ceremony,
custom, rule, method etc.)’
It is useful to note the emphasis upon act or action, and upon the solemnity
of the observance. It is helpful also to see indicated the scope of observances
beyond the purely religious, to involve legal, ceremonial and customary
aspects and obligations. The verb ‘observe’ is also interesting
in that it includes among its various dimensions of meaning:
‘I. to adhere to, follow (a method, rule etc.); II. To treat with
ceremonious respect or reverence; to worship, honour; to court; and III.to
regard with attention’.
Ritual involves action, and is thus performative. But not all those present
need to be actors, or to act in the same way. Others may be regarding
with attention and become participants in so doing. In many cases ritual
implies a number of participants, who may gather together for the purpose.
Places where ritual is performed may thus also be places of assembly.
In practice ritual observances are time-structured in at least two senses.
In the first place they are carried out periodically, at specific times,
which may themselves be of great significance. And since the two principal
terrestrial systems for measuring time are based upon the daily and annual
terrestrial rotations, many rituals are diurnal or annual, frequently
governed by seasonality. Secondly they are in themselves internally time-structured,
with well-determined sequences of actions, with prescribed repetitions
and assigned durations.
Furthermore ritual actions involve movements and utterances which are
themselves kinetic, and thus also time structured. The movements can involve
processions, dances, genuflections and gestures of considerable variety,
some of which may be repeated and often rhythmic. The utterances likewise
require repetition and rhythm. Both movement and utterance may involve
musical accompaniment, and the utterances may be chanted or sung.
The rituals, moreover can involve the use and exploitation of all the
senses. There may be strong light or mysterious darkness, or alternations
of the two, with the use also of bright colour, of reflecting surfaces
and of varying visual textures. Sound may involve periods of silence intermixed
with loud, sometimes percussive noise, with cries and shouts as well as
the use of musical instruments and song. There may be feasting and drinking,
involving varieties of experience of taste. And there may be incense and
other smells as well as the inhalation of substances with sensory effect,
including hallucinogens. Touch is involved not only in bodily movement
or contact, but in experience of heat, cold or of liquids, as well as
the use of stone or metal objects and stuffs of different texture.
IV. EARLIER APPROACHES TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF RELIGION OR CULT
In the course of excavations at the site of Phylakopi in Melos, when
it gradually
seemed clear that we were excavating a ‘shrine’ of Mycenaean
date (c.1400 to c. 1100 BC), the need, emerged for a clearer understanding
as to how a shrine or place employed for the specialist use of cult, might
be recognised archaeologically.
The discussion there was in the context of religious practice, since the
possibility
of secular ritual was in effect overlooked and so not seriously considered.
In the attempt to develop a framework (Renfrew 1985), several definitions
of ‘religion’ were considered. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary
definition (Onions 1973, 1978) of religion as: ‘Action or conduct
indicating a belief in, or reverence for, and desire to please, a divine
ruling power’ was considered helpful. It should be noted however
that the reference to the transcendent implied in the notion of a divine
ruling power, is not inherent in the definitions employed by Durkheim
or Geertz.
The discussion also focussed upon the concept of play. Indeed to the
archaeologist the symbolic representations often involved in sport and
in play may offer the risk of confusion with other symbolic behaviour
(such as cult practice) which is more ‘seriously’ intended.
The concept of ‘seriousness’, however, is not always helpful
when some games are indeed played with deadly seriousness. The Maya ball
game, for instance, could be of great seriousness to those present and
it has been suggested that in some instances the penalty for losing was
death through sacrifice.
In the discussion, emphasis was laid upon the following factors:
1. Attention focussing.
2. Special aspect of the liminal zone.
3. Presence of the transcendent and its symbolic focus.
4. Participation and offering.
(These will be developed further during the Symposium)
Some of these factors, particularly (1) and (4), would clearly be applicable
also
to secular ritual.
A List of Correlates, indicating some 18 factors or features, was then
developed. It was concluded that while no one factor would be a conclusive
indication of the practice of cult or religion, the definition could function
polythetically. In other words, the suggestion of cult practice could
be accepted if a certain number of specified traits was present. These
too will be presented at the symposium.
This ‘check list’ approach has been criticised, and some criticisms
will be discussed.
V. SOME QUESTIONS
The points outlined above accept that the archaeological recognition of
ritual is a task of some complexity. Clearly, however, this is an important
topic, since it impinges upon many significant questions relating to human
societies and their past. We would
like to know some of the following:
1. Can ritual be defined more effectively for our purposes than it has
been above?
2 How far is it possible to make inferences about ritual from the archaeological
evidence of hunter-gatherer societies?
3. Are such inferences possible for any known palaeolithic societies ?
4. Are there any cross-cultural regularities which, under certain conditions,
can be
recognised widely?
5. Can cross-cultural patterns be discerned in rituals accompanying death,
and the
bodily disposal of the dead?
6. When are such rituals first to be discerned in the archaeological record?
REFERENCES
Kyriakidis E., 2002, Ritual and its Establishment: The Case of Some Minoan
Open Air Sanctuaries, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge
Onions C., 1973, 1978, Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Renfrew C., 1985, The Archeology of Cult, the Sanctuary at Phylakopi,
London, British
School at Athens and Thames and Hudson.
Renfrew C. and Bahn P.,2000, Chapter 10, What did they think? Cognitive
archaeology,
art and religion, in Renfrew C. and Bahn P., Archaeology, Theories, Methods
and Practice, London, Thames and Hudson, 3rd. edn., 385 – 420.
Mary Beard, Classics Department,
University of Cambridge, UK
The archaeology of ritual in the city of Rome: mapping a sanctuary, plotting
a procession
This paper will look at the the intersection of archaeology, history
and ritual practice in the city of Rome.
Most recent archaeological explorations of Roman ritual have focussed
on the archaic period of Roman history, attempting to use material traces
(in the more or less total absence of literary accounts) to shed light
on the culture of early Italy; or on the ritual archaeology of the Roman
provinces (similarly unencumbered with literary evidence). Meanwhile the
archaeological data from the city itself have largely been conscripted
only as a backdrop to what is essentially a literary-based approach to
ritual action.
This paper will briefly illustrate this dichotomy; it will worry about
the validity of some of the most ambitious archaeological theories of
Roman ritual, at the same time as considering what is lost in the still
narrowly topographical approach to the ritual of the metropolis; and it
will wonder if and/or how archaeological material from the city might
be more fruitfully exploited. Underlying these questions will be more
general doubts and anxieties about how the history of Roman ritual is
theorised.
I shall draw in particular on two case studies. 1) the sacred grove of
the Arval Brethren from just outside Rome, at La Magliana, which has recently
been excavated (a site distinguished by a substantial body of inscribed
texts documenting the ritual that took place there); 2) the procession
of the Roman ritual of 'triumph', a victory parade through the streets
of Rome to the Capitoline hill and a defining (and much debated) feature
of Roman cultural identity.
|
