Ontological Beliefs and Hunter–Gatherer Ritual Landscapes: Native Californian Examples

Landscapes are socially produced and reproduced spaces. This is easily recognizable for large-scale urban groups with built environments that dominate living places. But it also pertains to all types of societies and cultures, even small-scale hunter–gatherers, once the ontological beliefs structuri...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Religions
Main Author: David S. Whitley
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2024-01-01
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/1/123
_version_ 1850130902472982528
author David S. Whitley
author_facet David S. Whitley
author_sort David S. Whitley
collection DOAJ
container_title Religions
description Landscapes are socially produced and reproduced spaces. This is easily recognizable for large-scale urban groups with built environments that dominate living places. But it also pertains to all types of societies and cultures, even small-scale hunter–gatherers, once the ontological beliefs structuring landscape perception and use are acknowledged. The foragers of south–central and southern California and the Great Basin illustrate this fact. They maintained a widely shared ontological perspective supported by a fundamental cognitive postulate. This is that supernatural power, the principle causative agent in the universe, was differentially distributed among individuals and places. The distribution of power, revealed by certain geomorphological features and natural events, structured their perceptions of landscape. These perceptions were expressed in ritual and symbolism, including petroglyphs and pictographs as durable manifestations of ceremonies on the landscape. The ontological relationship between power and landscape explains a longstanding question in hunter–gatherer archaeology: Why were rock writing sites created at specific locations? It also explains another equally significant but rarely considered and related problem: Why do some localities have massive quantities of rock writings that dwarf most other sites? The landscape symbolism of and the placement of sites by Native Californian and Great Basin tribes is explained by reference to their shared ontological beliefs, illustrating how they structured their ritual practices and archaeological record.
format Article
id doaj-art-4300358b7640468ea69c07f2e1a950a6
institution Directory of Open Access Journals
issn 2077-1444
language English
publishDate 2024-01-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
spelling doaj-art-4300358b7640468ea69c07f2e1a950a62025-08-19T23:52:47ZengMDPI AGReligions2077-14442024-01-0115112310.3390/rel15010123Ontological Beliefs and Hunter–Gatherer Ritual Landscapes: Native Californian ExamplesDavid S. Whitley0Rock Art Research Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2017, South AfricaLandscapes are socially produced and reproduced spaces. This is easily recognizable for large-scale urban groups with built environments that dominate living places. But it also pertains to all types of societies and cultures, even small-scale hunter–gatherers, once the ontological beliefs structuring landscape perception and use are acknowledged. The foragers of south–central and southern California and the Great Basin illustrate this fact. They maintained a widely shared ontological perspective supported by a fundamental cognitive postulate. This is that supernatural power, the principle causative agent in the universe, was differentially distributed among individuals and places. The distribution of power, revealed by certain geomorphological features and natural events, structured their perceptions of landscape. These perceptions were expressed in ritual and symbolism, including petroglyphs and pictographs as durable manifestations of ceremonies on the landscape. The ontological relationship between power and landscape explains a longstanding question in hunter–gatherer archaeology: Why were rock writing sites created at specific locations? It also explains another equally significant but rarely considered and related problem: Why do some localities have massive quantities of rock writings that dwarf most other sites? The landscape symbolism of and the placement of sites by Native Californian and Great Basin tribes is explained by reference to their shared ontological beliefs, illustrating how they structured their ritual practices and archaeological record.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/1/123archaeologylandscaperitualreligionrock art
spellingShingle David S. Whitley
Ontological Beliefs and Hunter–Gatherer Ritual Landscapes: Native Californian Examples
archaeology
landscape
ritual
religion
rock art
title Ontological Beliefs and Hunter–Gatherer Ritual Landscapes: Native Californian Examples
title_full Ontological Beliefs and Hunter–Gatherer Ritual Landscapes: Native Californian Examples
title_fullStr Ontological Beliefs and Hunter–Gatherer Ritual Landscapes: Native Californian Examples
title_full_unstemmed Ontological Beliefs and Hunter–Gatherer Ritual Landscapes: Native Californian Examples
title_short Ontological Beliefs and Hunter–Gatherer Ritual Landscapes: Native Californian Examples
title_sort ontological beliefs and hunter gatherer ritual landscapes native californian examples
topic archaeology
landscape
ritual
religion
rock art
url https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/1/123
work_keys_str_mv AT davidswhitley ontologicalbeliefsandhuntergathererrituallandscapesnativecalifornianexamples