“Fields that are defined by their object of study tend to be ‘raider discipline’ when it comes to theory and method. We borrow whatever seems useful relative to our subject matter from wherever we can find it.”¹

The novelty of the current investigation makes Taves’ observation particularly cogent to this dissertation: the dearth of established theoretical and methodological approaches on the topic means that one must “borrow whatever seems useful” from “wherever [one] can find it.” The last chapter discussed some of the consequences of this perspective and the impact of Steward on the “method” advocated by Hultkrantz for over thirty years. In his paper titled “Ecology of Religion: Its Scope and Methodology” Hultrkantz describes his perspective on Steward and the relationship of his work on to the development of the “religio-ecological method.” He writes, “In principle, Steward is right of course…I think it is possible to accept Steward's model in its gross features, and to apply it to religion and develop it further.”² Although this dissertation is interested in the core question raised by Hultkrantz, the limitations built into his “religio-ecological method,” make the work generally inapplicable to the task at hand. At best, it seems possible to treat Hultkrantz’s work as a theory suggesting environments may influence the generation and development of religions, rather than a methodology for investigating such an idea. In lieu of the “religio-ecological method”, this chapter proposes an approach using Frachetti’s “Non-Uniform Complexity Theory” and Taves’ “Building Block Approach” to Religious Studies. This discussion will lay out the approach and explore the applicability of these sources to the investigation concerning the influence of agriculturally marginal landscapes on the respective origins (and early development) of worship centered around Ahura Mazda and YHWH.

It is important to emphasize that, just as this research is but one attempt to address an overarching inquiry into the influence of environments on religions, this chapter suggests but one approach to the study of these cases. In the introduction to her book An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion, Tammi Schneider makes a point of clarifying each word in her title. Regarding the first word, she writes, “While this may appear an obvious inclusion to the title, the emphasis here is that the author recognizes this is not the final say on the topic but one of many approaches. It highlights that other approaches to the topic exist and there are certain to be more. This volume happens to be one particular opinion.”³ With the exception of the acknowledgment that “other approaches to the topic exist,” Schneider’s comments reflect the approach of this dissertation.

The last chapter discussed the threat posed by accusations of “Environmental Determinism” and the grounding of the present investigation in Frachetti’s concept of “Environmental Pragmatism.”⁴ Although this issue was discussed with regard to the work of two anthropologists (Steward and Hultkrantz) it seems that there may be a connection between this issue and concerns regarding scholarly positionality and perspective in the Religious Studies. Questions regarding the religious perspectives (and intentions) of scholars in the field seem to be so unavoidable that this is an important place to begin outlining the approach of this dissertation.