|
In the study of religion, we make sure of three major sources of evidence: texts, archeological findings and inscriptions. All three have their own characteristics, limitations and advantages, and in conjunction can develop a very effective portrayal of religions and cultures.
Generally, the most obvious source for studying a religion is that religion's texts. Religious documents come in canonical and common forms-providing two different perspective s upon life. Canonical texts are those, which are approved and approved and maintained by the established religious hierarchy (such as the Bible or the Vedas); common texts are those (such as folktales), which are utilized by the common people for their own amusement and edification. Textual sources, when we understand their written languages, provide us with the direct words of the people; those words, however, can be skewed by point of view and over time. When we examine textual evidence, we must determine who wrote the words and to what end. That the New Testament was written by literate Jewish males, for example, is not insignificant. Formal texts are usually written by the wealthy elite and so tend to represent the interests of that class. 'Common' literature, or that of the people at large, probably better represents the daily life of a far greater portion of society. Over time and redaction (the rewriting and editing process of texts), either form of text may become distorted from its original view. Although the necessary interpretation of scholars can be difficult, the leeway inherently provided by interpretation is not without value-it enables a religion to continue its existence as times and values change.
In contrast to written texts, the items we call archeological evidence were not really intended to send information over time. Because of this, they provide a more accurate representation of a society to scholars, even though that representation may be misinterpreted. The construction of medieval churches (i.e. the proximity of graves to the altar) provides us with a view of what was important to Christians in that era. Specifically, as wealthy and high ranked individuals were buried as closely as possible to the altar (the greater the influence, the closer the burial), it is clear that medieval Christians believed the alter to hold some level of power over the individual's afterlife. Such sources, however, do not communicate directly with us and are therefore subject to misinterpretation. It is easier to overlook something, which was not intended for communication. Archeological evidence also has a connection with the common people. Their artifacts, as well as those of the rich, are quite able to survive over time. Fortunately, this provides us with samples of how all aspects of society behaved within their religious contexts.
Unlike archeological evidence, inscriptions on buildings, stones, pillars, etc. (which are a specific form of such) usually represent the exclusive interests of the wealthy. Generally only the powerful elite can afford to leave such a lasting mark upon the world. As they are so directly connected to the wealthy, such inscriptions may bear little connection to the ideals and activities of the society, as a whole. Nevertheless, they do indicate the direction in which the elite funneled their resources, and through that, help us to understand the concerns and activities of the wealthier classes.
None of these methods can be used to determine social theory in isolation, but in conjunction they can offset the biases and limitations of one another. It is possible to understand the general attitudes of both wealthy and poor, male and female segments of a society by taking differing forms of evidence.
|
| |
