Hex

Okay, I've been thinking how to go about this discussion, and I wanted to get a couple of things squared away, as a sort of foundation for all of this.

First, anthropologically, I see 'religion' as being part of a continuum of supernatural beliefs spanning from 'simple' superstition to the organized theocracies. What then sets the boundaries for 'religion' as opposed to 'magic'?

This is not a simple question, and anthropologists have been dealing with it for some time. Some anthropologists who were themselves adherents to an organized religion have attempted to make a decisive line in the supernatural sand in order to make what -they- believe 'religion' and what those other guys believe 'magic'. (Not that we have -any- idea how that goes, huh? )

For Tylor, religion was about spirits, but things have moved on since the 1870's. Many others have defined it variously. Dow notes:


At some level, for simplicity, I prefer Geertz's definition of religion, but ultimately find it lacking:
What is lacking it it? The scope. Geertz's definition works fine for organized religions as well as for magical systems. It nicely encompasses ritual, however, given the importance of symbology, not just of human actions as intent, but in the correct place/setting, time and manner, but it doesn't express the greater 'shared' aspect/orthodoxy that we see in major religions.

Looking at ancient state religions, one of the functions of this pervasive worldview of explanations is to provide a cohesive factor for a culture's population.

So, what's important for this? Not only a system of symbology that explains and motivates, but one that is shared. Given the shared symbology, there will be shared ritual, shared paraphernalia, shared reproduction of space, and shared interpretation of status/power/ethics and the like.

And it’s not just important for defining religion as a whole, but for this discussion. In looking at the archaeological remains, while all the intents may be difficult to dig out, the material remains are the stock and trade of archaeologists. So, the basics of ‘religion’ will exist in the archaeological record.


That said, as we go through this discussion, we’re likely to find that differing archaeologists/anthropologists may be more liberal or more constrained in their definitions of ‘religion’. When these occurrences come up, I’ll attempt to point out the differences and explain the point of view and it’s relevancy as best I can.

Let me know if you guys want a more clear-cut definition and I'll try, but I think that this is a pretty good working definition/understanding for this discussion.

spin

Let me now point out at least three meanings of cult (taking a cue from fanucon's post as well).

1. systematic worship of a deity -- that which one does as a duty towards the deity (ritual being the performative aspect);
2. a particular religion, which is usually small and seen as "astandard"; and
3. the treatment of a person or cultural phenomenon with such reverence that it seems as intense as religious worship.

While the culture in which the guilds developed was overtly religious, their associations were not centered on worship but of worldly purpose (support of members). Despite their ritualistic aspects there is nothing in them, or in masonery, that reflects a cult of any of the above defninitions.

In archaeology it is the first meaning that is the functional one. (It's the one we got originally from Latin via French and which we went back to and why we have the word "cultus".)

(Oh and worship is only one aspect of religion.)


spin

Hex

(red bolding mine)

Spin -

I posted this about the archaeological 'cult' when discussing the Deal Figurine with Roger (far) above:

Please note that for a 'cult' designation in an archaeological context, one need -not- involve religion. The important thing is the shared symbolism - in artifacts. Below is an (older) example refering to the 'Buzzard Cult', which is now interpreted as being associated with the 'Southern Cult' of or the American Southeast.


Much modern archaeological terminology prefers to call these 'complexes', 'cultures', 'periods', or the like, rather than use such a loaded word. But, even when the term does creep back into use and it includes an aspect of worship, it's still defined by the artifacts to show the similarities:


Does that clear anything up? Should I merely drop the archaeological 'cultic' from this discussion and we'll just go with a religious/worship definition? If so, I'll again do my best to try and point out when, in the archaeological literature/terminology which meaning is being used (but I'll ask in advance for forgiveness if I slip up and miss one someplace - it's bound to happen :blush.

I want to keep this simple and understandable for everyone.


And, I -wish- the jargon were simple enough to just go to the dictionary for. :huh: