Do Ut Des – the Relation of Material History and Archaeology of Religion to the Study of Religions

Archaeology as “material history” and the study of religions mutually reciprocate through their shared interest in the ability of people to establish memories and create imaginaries. Starting from this presupposition, the article evaluates the approaches used in archaeology to analyse the practices of past peoples. Because of the fragmented nature of the evidence, archaeological methods focus on detailed descriptions, chronologies and operationalising comparisons, all of which are also applicable to the study of religions. Beyond this, both employ theories from sociology as well as from economical, political, and cultural studies. In order to bring these tools to bear on the memory and the imaginary of (past) people, five analytical categories in which human activities can be discursively appropriated are distinguished: space, object, time, context, and practice. Memory and the imaginary converge in these categories, which can be investigated in both archaeology and the study of religions, making a reciprocal exchange between the disciplines possible. Archaeology can enrich the fields of religion and history and related societal discourses in a fruitful way by making clear similarities, differences, and changes in religions through their reflections in material culture, thus making religion more tangible, whereas archaeology benefits from the cross‐cultural and diachronic perspective present in the study of religions

Archaeology · Art · Context (archaeology · Epistemology · Focus (optics · History of religions · Linguistics · Perspective (graphical · Politics · Presupposition · Reciprocal · Relation (database · Sociology · Space (punctuation) · The Imaginary · Visual arts · Anthropological Studies and Insights · Anthropology · Asian Studies and History · History · Philosophy · Psychology · Religious Tourism and Spaces