-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
1/12
The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Hesperia Supplements.
http://www.jstor.org
Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from MaliaAuthor(s): Pascal Darcque and Aleydis Van de MoortelSource: Hesperia Supplements, Vol. 42, Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine
C. Gesell (2009), pp. 31-41Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at AthensStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27759928Accessed: 17-03-2015 10:55 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ascsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27759928http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27759928http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ascsahttp://www.jstor.org/
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
2/12
CHAPTER
3
Special, Ritual, or Cultic:
A Case
Study
from
Malia
by
Pascal
Darcque
andAleydis
Van
deMoortel
Studies
of cult
in
Aegean prehistory
all
too
often
rely
on
speculation
and
educated guesses rather than on rigorous interpretation of solidly estab
lished facts.
Because of the
ambiguity
of
the
evidence,
we
propose
that
the
study
of
Aegean
cult
is
in
need
of what Leroi-Gourhan has called
a
vocabulaire
d'attente, 1
best
translated
into
English
as a
noncommittal
vocabulary.
The
use
of neutral
language
in
the
study
of
Aegean
cult
would
allow
us
to
name
without
interpreting
and
to
classify
without
anticipating
anything
in
terms
of
meaning.
It
is
particularly important
that
we
avoid
labeling immediately
as
cultic
any
object,
arrangement,
or
building
that
is
merely
unusual,
adding
it
to
the
already
too
long
list of
supposedly
cultic
contexts
or
objects.2
Obvious
examples
may
be found
in
most
studies ofMinoan cult
that,
following
in
the
footsteps
of
Evans, uncritically
use
his
picturesque
labels such
as
Lustral
Basin,
Sacral
Knot,
and Horns of Consecration without ad
ducing
any
proof
for these
interpretations.
Today,
as
much
as
in
the
past,
Evans's
terminology
is
widely
used,
his
interpretations
are
seldom
called
into
question,
and his
concept
of
Minoan
society
is
rarely
criticized.3
Renfrew deserves
credit for
being
the first scholar of
Aegean
cult
to
propose
explicit
criteria
for the
identification of cultic contexts.4 The
practical
application
of his
principles
and
criteria, however,
poses
serious
methodological problems
that later
scholars have been unable
to
resolve,
whether
they
have
adopted
his frameworkwholesale5
or
modified
it in
some
fashion.6
Even
though
Renfrew
begins
his theoretical discourse
with
the
admirable
statement
that each
step
in
the
argument
must
be
open
to
exam
ination, 7
he
himself fails
to
apply
this
principle
to
the basic
problem
of iden
tifying
a
cultic context.8
Rather
than
developing
steps
of
interpretation,
1.
Leroi-Gourhan
1974,
p.
145.
2. Fernandez
1988,
p.
229.
3.
Rehak and
Younger
2001,
p.
433;
for
examples,
see
Treuil
2005.
4.
Renfrew
1985,
pp.
11-26.
5.
E.g.,
Moore
andTaylour
1999,
pp.
77-81.
6.
E.g.,
the revision
proposed
by
Pilafidis-Williams
1998,
pp.
121-125.
7.
Renfrew
1985,
p.
11.
8. Even
though
Renfrew lists
steps
of
interpretation
in
his
analysis
of
the
Ayia
Triada
sarcophagus,
he has
already
decided
in the
first
step
that the
scene
is
in
some
sense
cultic
(Renfrew 1985,
pp.
24-25);
see
below.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
3/12
32
PASCAL
DARCQUE
AND
ALEYDIS VAN DE
MOORTEL
he
proposes
basically
a
one-step
assessment
involving
a
list of 18
archaeo
logical
correlates
of cultic
contexts.
Furthermore,
even
though
he makes
it
clear
that
we
should
not
expect
all of
these
criteria
to
be
present
in
any
specific
case,
he
does
not
offer
any
guidelines
as
to
which criteria
are
pe
ripheral
and which ones essential for
identifying
a context as cultic.
For
instance,
is it
enough
to
establish that
an
archaeological
context
is
a
special
place
(his
correlates
1
and
2)
with
special
paraphernalia
(corre
lates
6,
8,
and
12)
for
it
to
be
cultic?
The
underlying
problem
of
Renfrew's
approach
is
that,
like
all
scholars
of
Aegean
cult before
him,
he
adopts
an
all-or-nothing
attitude;
a
context
is
either cultic
or
noncultic,
and
one
arrives
at
this
decision
through
a
one-step
evaluation of the
archaeological
data.
Thus,
an
archaeologist
studying
an
unusual
context
is
still
as
tempted
as
ever
before
to
jump
to
the
conclusion
that
it is
cultic. Even
if
the archae
ologist
is
cautious
and
designates
the
context
as
possibly
cultic,
the
use
of
this
qualifier
does little
to
remedy
the stark
dichotomy
of the
interpretive
framework. In sum, while Renfrew's
pioneering
attempt
has been
very
use
ful
to
scholars of
prehistoric
cult
to
help
them
structure
their
observations
of the
evidence,
it
has
not
much facilitated the basic
process
of
deciding
whether
or
not
an
archaeological
context
is
cultic.
Other
problematic
aspects
of
Renfrew's theoretical framework
are
his
notion
that
a
cult
place
must
be
special,
and his
ambiguous
distinc
tion
between ritual and cult. Renfrew
assumes
that
a
prehistoric
Aegean
cultic
context
had
by
definition
a
special
character,
but
in
fact this has
never
been
proven.9 By making
this
assumption,
he
imposes
on
Aegean
prehistoric
peoples
a
world vision that
is
very
much
our
own,
one
in
which
the
religious
and
profane
are
neatly
separated.
Certainly,
such
separation
is
more or less evident in the cult practices of the laterGreeks and Romans
and
in
the
great
monotheist
religions
of
Judaism,
Christianity,
and
Islam.
In all
these
religions, worship
focuses
on
places
with
special
character
and the
use
of
specific
paraphernalia.10
Even
though
we
know of
special
cult
places
in
Aegean prehistory,
such
as
Minoan
peak
sanctuaries
and
Late
Minoan
(LM)
III
bench
shrines,
we
have
a
poor
understanding
of
how
Aegean people practiced religion,
and the identification of
specific
cult
areas
is
in
many
cases
controversial.
The
problems
related
to
the
practical application
of Renfrew's
theoretical framework
are
compounded
by
the
ambiguity surrounding
his
distinction between ritual
and
cult.
Whereas
early
on
in
his discussion he
provides criteria for identifying ritual contexts, and he makes it clear that
a
ritual
may
be
religious
or
nonreligious
(e.g.,
the
court
ritual for
a
king
or
the investiture
of
civic
officials),
the distinction
between
nonreligious
rituals and cult becomes
more
obscure
once
he launches
into
a
discourse
on
cult.At
several times
in
this discussion
he
almost
imperceptibly
slides from
one
semantic
sphere
into
the other.
For
example,
in
his
analysis
of
the
Ayia
Triada
sarcophagus,
Renfrew
concludes,
Given
the
position
of
the
paint
ings
on
the
side
of
a
sarcophagus,
it is
certainly permissible
to
see
this
as
a
funerary
ritual rather than
as
an
act
of
worship,
but
in
the broad
sense we
can
recognize
it
as a
cult scene. 11
Clearly,
Renfrew
no
longer distinguishes
here
between
funerary
ritual
and
cult,
even
though
it remains
to
be
proven
that
Minoan
funerary
rituals involved
attempts
at
establishing
contact
with
gods
rather than
merely
acts
of
reverence
for
dead
ancestors.
9. He uses the term
special
explic
itly
in his
correlates
1, 2,
4,
and
12,
but
the idea
that
cultic
objects,
arrange
ments,
and
actions
must
be
special
underlies
all his criteria.
Already
Moore
and
Taylour
criticize
Renfrew
in
this
respect,
stating
that
there
is
implicit
in
such
an
approach
with
regard
to
cult
the creation of
a
dichotomy
between
notions
of
sacred and
profane
which
may
not
be
justified
with
respect
to
the
material under discussion
(Moore
and
Taylour
1999,
p.
77).
10. Even in those religions that
clearly
distinguish
the
religious
from
the
profane,
there
is
some
mixing.
For
instance,
everyday
items
can
be
used
in
religious
contexts
(e.g.,
the
obligatory
plastic
bottle
of olive
oil
in
small
rural
modern Greek
churches),
and
more
ephemeral
forms
of
worship
may
take
place
in
everyday
places,
such
as a
tradi
tional
Catholic household
praying
corner,
consisting
of
the
image
of
a
saint
and
perhaps
a
candle
or
a
vase
with
flowers,
or
Muslim
chapels
in
modern-day gas
stations
in
Turkey.
11.
Renfrew
1985,
pp.
24-25.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
4/12
SPECIAL,
RITUAL,
OR CULTIC
33
BUILDING
10
AT MALIA
Building
10
was
discovered
in
the
area
northeast
of the New Palace
at
Malia
during
the
1981-1992
excavations conducted under the
auspices
of the French School atAthens.12 It offers us the chance to
explore
the
circumstances
in
which
one
can or
cannot
extend
the identification of
an
archaeological
context
from
special
to
ritual and from ritual
to
cultic.
Because
of the
great
variability
in
the
preservation
of
archaeological
sites,
we
believe
that
it is
better
to
apply
Renfrew's
criteria
as
general
guidelines
on a
case-by-case
basis,
through
careful consideration of the
entire
pre
served
context,
rather than
to
propose
new
sets
of
criteria
for each of
our
interpretive
steps.
Since
its
discovery
in
1982,
we
have
pondered
the function of build
ing
10.
The authors
of
preliminary
reports
about the
building
have avoided
interpreting
it
so as
not to
apply
a
label that
might
later have
to
be
revoked.13
The construction ofbuilding 10was part of the architectural rearrangement
of
the
area
that coincided with the
erection
of the north
wing
of theNew
Palace
early
in
the
LM IA
phase
(Figs.
3.1,
3.2).14
The northeast
entrance to
the New Palace
was
separated
from the
nearby
town
houses
by
an
open
area
roughly
9.5
m
wide and 13.0
m
long
from north
to
south,
accessed from the north. The
palace
entrance
itself
was
provided
with
a
three-columned
projecting
porch.
This
porch
was
flanked
by
two
cobbled
pavements
(64
to
the
north and 56
to
the
south)
that bonded with
it
and had
obviously
been constructed
at
the
same
time.
Porch and
pavements
formed the
north,
west,
and south borders
of
a
large,
roughly
circular
pit
(11),
ca.
8.5
m
in
diameter and
ca.
0.75
to
1.0
m
deep,
that occupied the remainder of the open area.The eastern border of pit 11
and the
open
area was
formed
by
wall
76. Southern
pavement
56
ended
to
the south
against
ashlar wall
54,
which
originally
consisted of
four
courses;
only
two
courses are
preserved
in
situ.
Building
10,
a
small
rectangular
ashlar
building
of
ca.
3.85?3.90
x
2.30
2.35
m
(ca.
9.0 m2
overall),
was
constructed
together
with
pavement
56.
Its walls
are
only
one
stone
(ca.
0.50
m)
wide,
and
its
interior
space
mea
sures
only
2.8
x
1.3
m,
or ca.
3.6
m2.
Only
two
courses
of
its
walls
are
pre
served
on
the
north,
west,
and
south
sides;
three
courses
are
preserved
on
the
east.
An
examination
of
this small
building's
architecture
suggests
the
exis
tence
of
a
first rchitectural
phase
with
an
entrance
on
the southwest, but
with
no
associated floor
or
floor
deposit
preserved.
The
second
architectural
phase
is
marked
by
the
raising
of the
southwest entrance's
threshold and
the
laying
of
an
earthen
floor. This
phase probably
ended
late
in LM IA
in
a
firedestruction that buried
a
floor
deposit
of
pottery.
All
vases were
found
near
thewalls of the
building.
Seven
vases were
arranged right
side
up
in
a row
along
the
interior
of the
west
wall.
They
were
found
on
top
of
a
20-cm-wide
strip
of
heavily
burned
material,
which
we can
interpret
as
the
remains
of
a
wooden board
(Table
3.1;
Figs.
3.3,
3.4).
Similar
wooden
boards
seem
to
have lined the
interiors
of the north and
east
walls,
to
judge
from the similar
arrangement
and
slightly
raised elevation of
vases
found
there.
The wooden board
against
the
west
wall
had
an
elevation
of
+13.63
masl.
Clusters
of three
vases near
the north wall and
three
vases
in
12. The
full
publication
of this
building
and the
entire Abords
Nord-Est
is
currently being prepared
under the direction of
Darcque.
13.
Baurain,
Darcque,
and Verlinden
1983,
pp.
903-904,
figs.
5-7;
1985,
p.
894;
1986,
p.
818.
14. All the numbered architectural
features
mentioned
in
the
text
are
shown
in
Figs.
3.1
and 3.5. On
the
basis
of his
soundings,
Pelon
has
con
cluded
that the
north facade
of
the
Middle
Minoan
(MM)
III
palace
was
located
some
50
m
farther
south,
below
Quartier
III
(Pelon
1992,
p.
36,
fig.
18,
plan
13),
whereas
the
northeast
part
of
the
New
Palace
was
built
in LM
IA
(cf.
Pelon
1992,
p.
14).
For
evidence
narrowing
the
construction date of the
palace's
new
north facade
to
early
in
LM
IA,
see
Darcque
and Van
de
Moortel 2006.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
5/12
34
PASCAL
DARCQUE
AND
ALEYDIS VAN
DE
MOORTEL
Figure
3.1. Schematic
plan
of
the
area
northeast of the
palace
at
Malia,
constructed
in
early
LM
IA.
M.
Schmid,
P.
Darcque,
A. Van de
Moortel
Figure
3.2.Malia ashlar
building
10,
cobble
pavement
56,
ashlar
wall
54,
and the southernpart ofpit 11 seen
from the
palace.
Photo
P.
Darcque
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
6/12
SPECIAL,
RITUAL,
OR CULTIC
35
TABLE
3.1. CLUSTERS
OF
VASE SHAPES BELONGING
TO THE
DESTRUCTION
LEVEL OF THE
SECOND
ARCHITECTURAL
PHASE OF
BUILDING
10
West Wall North
Wall
Northeast
Corner
East
Wall
Southeast
Corner
Unknown
Location
Conical cups 1344-002 1308-007 1308-010 1308-006 1308-002
1345-002
1308-011
1309-001
1345-003
1353-003
1345-005
1362-003
1362-004
1365-002
Bell
cups
1308-021
Straight-sided
ups
1345-001
1308-009 1308-005 1308-001
1308-012
1308-013
1308-029
Miniature
brazier-rhyta
1345-004
1353-001
Tripod
bowls
1345-006
1353-002
1308-004 1308-003
1308-023
Miniature lamps 1308-008 1353-004
the southeast
corner
of the
building
were
located
at
similar
elevations
(ca.
+13.63-13.68
masl).
In the northeast
corner,
a
dense cluster of
nine
vases
was
found between
+13.65 and
13.79
masl. This
group
was
undoubtedly
disturbed
during
the later
repair
of
the
building.
To
its
south,
and
not
distinctly separated
from
it,
were
four
vases
aligned
near
the
east
wall
at
+13.63-13.68 masl.
The
31
vases
that
can
be
assigned
to
the destruction
deposit display
an
unusually
narrow
range
of
shapes,
with similar
shapes
and functions
repeated
in
each cluster
(Table
3.1;
Fig.
3.4).
The
most
common
shapes
are conical cups, straight-sided cups, and tripod bowls. Each cluster in
cluded
at
least
one
to
three conical
cups,
and all but
one
group
contained
a
straight-sided
cup
and
a
tripod
bowl. Since
the
findspot
of three
large
straight-sided
cups
and
one
tripod
bowl
was
not
recorded,
it is
possible
that
these
shapes
were
in
fact
part
of each cluster.
Alternatively,
vases
without
noted location
may
have formed
a
separate
cluster. Rare
shapes
are
brazier
rhyta
and
lamps,
each
occurring
in
only
two
groups,
and
a
miniature
bell
cup,
which
is
a
singleton
without
known location.
All
of
the
vases are
made
of fine
pale
red
or
dark red fabrics.
They
are
of
utilitarian
quality
with
roughly
smoothed surfaces that
are
mostly
unpainted.
The
only
painted
decoration
is
found
on
tripod
bowl
no.
1308
004
and
consists
of
white linear
patterns
on
a
clay ground
on
both the
interior
and
exterior
of the vessel.
All
vases are
fire-darkened
as a
result of
the
conflagration
that
must
have
destroyed
the
building.
The
conical
cups
belong
to
the small
compact type
C with
flaring
walls
that
are
straight
to
slightly
convex.The
cups range
in
height
between
3.9
cm
and
4.3
cm,
in rim
diameter
between
7.3
cm
and
8.9
cm,
and
in
base di
ameter
between
3.4
cm
and
4.2
cm.
The
capacity
of
nine
cups
that could
be
measured
varies
between
62 ml
(1345-002)
and
90 ml
(1353-003),
averaging
74
ml. These
conical
cups
may
have served
for
drinking
or
hold
ing
liquids
or
to
contain
a
small
amount
of solid
substance. Most
of the
conical
cups
were
found
right
side
up,
except
for conical
cups
1308-010
and
1308-011,
which
were
upside
down.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
7/12
36
PASCAL
DARCQUE
AND ALEYDIS
VAN
DE
MOORTEL
Figure
3.3
(left).
alia
building
10;
excavation
photo
showing
top
view
of
vases
of
the
west
wall
group
on
a
strip
f
heavily
burned
material.
Photo
P.
Darcque
Figure
3.4
(opposite).
Schematic
plan
of
the
second
architectural
phase
of
Malia
building
10
showing
the
distribution
of the
vases
of the
floor
deposit
(scale 1:50);
potterydrawings
are
at
scale
1:6.
Architectural
drawing
M. Schmid and
P.
Darcque;
pottery
draw
ings
F.
Bourguignon,
R.
Docsan,
G.
Fawkes,
H.
Fournier,
M.
Schumacher,
and
N.
Sigalas
The
straight-sided
cups
have
conical
bodies
and
are
generally
large,
ranging in height from 5.2
cm
to
7.0
cm
and
in
diameter
from
11.0
cm
to
13.0
cm.
Only straight-sided
cup
1308-005
is
small,
measuring
4.9
cm
in
height
and
7.9
cm
in rim
diameter.
Two of three
straight-sided
cups
(1308-005
and
1308-009)
had their
completely preserved
rims
pulled
into
an
ovoid
shape
at
an
angle
to
the
handle,
which
would
have
made them
more
suitable
for
pouring.
This
could
mean
that these
straight-sided
cups
were
used
for
pouring
liquids
rather than
drinking.
Most of
the
tripod
bowls
(except
for
pattern-painted
1308-004)
had
fire-darkened
interiors,
but this discoloration
may
be
due
to
the fire
destruction
of the
building,
because
their
exteriors
were
fire-darkened
as
well.
Tripod
bowl
1308-004
was
found
with
charcoal
inside,
but
as
it
is
the only tripod bowl with white-painted decoration on its interior and
no
fire-darkening,
the
charcoal
is
likely
to
have
come
from the
building's
destruction
instead
of from the
use
of the
tripod
bowl.15
Since
most
of the
groups
seem
to
have
included
only
one
tripod
bowl,
it
is
probable
that all
of the
tripod
bowls served
the
same
function,
holding
nonburning
offerings
rather
than
coals
or
other
burning
material.
Miniature
braziers 1345-004
and
1353-001,
found
in
the
west
and
northeast
clusters,
were
definitely
not
used
to
carry
burning
matter.
Both
have
perforated
bases and
functioned
as
rhyta
for
pouring
liquids.
Finally,
two
groups
included
single
examples
of
miniature
handheld,
convex-sided
lamps
(1308-008
and
1353-004).
These,
too,
are
unusually
small,
with
heights
of
2.9
cm
and
2.2
cm
and
maximum diameters
of
6.7
cm
and 5.95
cm,
respectively.16
he
lamps
were
located
in
the
north
and
northeast
clusters,
which
are
the
ones
farthest
removed
from
the
southwest
entrance
and
most
in
need
of artificial
light.
he fire-blackened
spout
of
lamp
1308-008,
belonging
to
the
north
group,
indicates
that
it
had
been used.
One
may
conclude
that each cluster
contained
vases
for
pouring
(pos
sibly straight-sided
cups,
miniature
brazier-rhyta)
and
drinking
(conical
cups,
possibly
straight-sided
cups)
or
offering
(conical
cups,
tripod
bowls).
Nearly
all
show differential
wear
at
the
rim,
base
edge,
or
handle
that
is
indicative of use. The groups of vases found in the southeast corner and
near
the north
wall
show
little
or
no
wear,
and
hence
appear
to
have
been
15.
Conical
cup
1362-003,
from
he
northeast
corner
of the
building,
was
also
found
right
side
up
and
contained
charcoal,
but
the
charcoal
is
likely
to
be
intrusive,
since
none
was
found
in
any
of the
other
conical
cups.
16.
For
a
normal-sized
convex-sided
lamp,
see
Pelon
1970,
p.
60,
no.
54,
pi.XXXVL7; itsheight is 3.4 cmand
maximum diameter
9
cm.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
8/12
SPECIAL, RITUAL,
OR CULTIC
Unknown location
SIP
i
1308-012 1308-013 1308-029 1308-021 1308-023
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
9/12
38
PASCAL
DARCQUE
AND
ALEYDIS
VAN
DE
MOORTEL
Figure
3.5.
Malia,
schematic
plan
of
the
area
northeast
of
the
palace,
probably
constructed
in
early
LM
IB.
M.
Schmid,
P.
Darcque,
A. Van
de
Moortel
used the least.17
f
the
two
lamps
found
in
this
building,
only
the
one
from
the
north
group
had been
used.
The destruction of
building
10
was
accompanied
by
a
subsidence of
some
of the
stones
of ashlar wall 54.18 The destruction
may
have been
caused
by
a
sinking
of the
edge
of
pit
11
to
the northeast of
building
10,
since
that
part
of the
building
was
most
deformed. The
large
ashlar
block
taking
up
most
of the
west
facade of
building
10 cracked into
two
pieces,
and
part
of
pavement
56 slid
into
pit
11.
It
seems
that the
edge
of
pit
11
had
not
been
sufficiently
shored
up
at
this
point.
In
the
next
architectural
phase, probably early
in
the
LM IB
period,
the
area was
rearranged (Figs.
3.2,
3.5).
The north
entrance to
pavement
64
was
blocked,
and
to
the
east
a
walled
passage
(14-15)
was
constructed
at a higher level. This ran along the east side of building 10 and made a
90-degree
turn
around
it
on
the
southeast,
continuing
westward. Hence
forth,
the
only
way
to
reach the northeast
entrance
of the
palace
was
via
the raised
passage
14-15 and
the ruined
buildings
to
the south ofwall
54,
and
through
an
opening
in
thiswall
onto
pavement
56.
Building
10
was
repaired,
with little chink
stones
inserted
to
shore
up
the
ashlar blocks
cracked
or
displaced by
the subsidence.
The southwest
entrance to
the
building
was
blocked. It
is
not
clear
whether there
was
a
new
entrance
or
where
it
was
located. The floor level
associated with this third architectural
phase
has
not
been identified.The
poor
preservation
of this
phase
is
due
to
Chapouthiers
excavations
in
this
area in the 1930s.
17.
That the absence of discernible
use wear
is
not
a
reliable indicator of
lackof
use
is
shown
by lamp
1308-008,
which is
not
worn
at
the
rim,
base,
or
handle,
but has
a
fire-blackened
spout
and
must
have been used
at
least
once.
18.
Darcque
and Van de Moortel
2006.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
10/12
SPECIAL,
RITUAL,
OR CULTIC
39
Ashlar
wall
54
was
repaired
in
the
same
fashion
as
building
10.
Pit
11
was
filledwith earth and
various
debris,
including
bones,
broken
pottery,
and
plaster
fragments,
no
doubt
in
order
to
prevent
another
subsidence.
It
is
clear
from the
distribution
of
cross-joins among
the
pottery fragments
that
the
filling
of the
pit represented
a
single
event.19
INTERPRETATION
OF BUILDING
10
It
is
not
our
goal
in
this
very
short article
to
develop
a new
methodological
framework
for
identifying
cultic
or
noncultic
contexts.
We
merely
want to
clarify
some
of the
differences between
special,
ritual,
and cultic
contexts,
and
we
want
to
give
an
example
of how
to
deal
with
special
contexts.
There
is
indeed
no
doubt that
building
10
had
a
special
character.
This
is
attested,
first
of
all,
by
its
isolated location
in
an
open
area
just
outside
the northeast entrance to the
palace
and in close association with that
structure.
The builders of the
New Palace
at
Malia made
a
special
effort
to construct
a
cobbled
entryway
to
the
northeast
palace
entrance,
and this
also led
to
building
10.
In
fact,
in
the
first
nd
second
architectural
phases,
because of the
presence
of
the
large pit
11,
one
could
not
reach
building
10
without
going
through
the
palace porch.
Departing
building
10,
one
could
only
turn
around
and
trace
one's
steps
back
to
the
palace
entrance.
Thus
it
is
obvious that
building
10
was
closely
linked
to
the
palace.
Another
aspect
that
makes this
structure
special
is
its
small
size.
In
its
north
part
the free
space
between
thewooden
boards
was
only
0.85
m
wide and 1.0
m
long,
which
would have
left
room
for
only
one
person
at
a time to use it. he arrangement of thewooden boards
lining
itswest,
north,
and
east
walls
on
the interior is
peculiar
as
well. One
may
assume
that the
vases
of the
second-phase
destruction
deposit
were
used
by
people
who
visited
this
building
on
their
way
to
or
from the
palace.
The
vases are
special
in
character
because of their
unusually
limited
range
of
shapes
and the
repetition
in
their
distribution.
They certainly
cannot
be
interpreted
as an
ordinary
domestic
or
industrial
assemblage.
Protopalatial
and
Neopalatial
domestic
assemblages
include conical
cups,
straight-sided
cups,
lamps,
and
occasionally rhyta
or
footed
vases,
but
they usually
have
a
variety
of other
functional classes
as
well:
drinking
and
serving
vessels
(cups
other than conical
cups,
bowls,
bridge-spouted
jars,
jugs),
storage
vessels (jars, pithoi), transport vessels (amphoras), cooking vessels, basins,
and additional
household
items
such
as
weaving equipment
and other
tools.20No known
household
assemblages
in
Minoan Crete have
such
a
19.
Darcque
and
Van
de Moortel
2006.
20. A
modest number of Proto
palatial
and
Neopalatial
household
assemblages
have received detailed
publication.
For
Protopalatial examples,
see,
e.g.,
Popham
1974;
MacGillivray
1998
(Knossos);
Levi
1976,
pp.
422
431,
512-561,
653-679;
Van
de
Moortel
1997,
pp.
777-786;
Speziale
2001
(Phaistos);
Mu IV
(Malia);
for
MM
III,
see
Catling,
Catling,
and
Smyth
1979
(Knossos)
and
Wright
1996
(Kommos).
For LM
IA,
see
D'Agata
1989
(AyiaTriada),
and
for
examples
of
LM IA
and
LM IB
domestic
assemblages,
see
La Rosa
and Cucuzza
2001
(Seli
di
Kamilari);
Pseira
I, III,
and IV
(Pseira).
For
LM
IB,
see
Pelon
1966
(Malia);
Kanta
and Rocchetti
1989
(Nerokourou);
Palio 2001b
(Phaistos);
Mochlos
IA
and
IB
(Mochlos).
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
11/12
4Q
PASCAL
DARCQUE
AND
ALEYDIS VAN DE
MOORTEL
narrow
range
of
vase
types
distributed
in
repetitive
clusters
aswas
found
in
building
10.
After
its
destruction,
building
10
was
repaired,
and the
entire
area
rearranged
in
an
ostensible effort
to
prevent further subsidence and pro
tect
the
building.
The
newly
constructed
passage
14-15
clearly respected
the
outlines of
building
10,
and
the
new access
way
to
the
palace
led
to
building
10
as
well. Even
though
one no
longer
needed
to
pass
through
the
palace
porch
to
reach
building
10,
it
was
obviously
still
closely
related
to
the
palace.
From this
description
it is
clear that
we are
dealing
with
a
building
constructed
at
a
special
location,
with
a
special building
technique
(the
use
of
ashlar
masonry)
and
interior
arrangement,
and
a
special
inventory.
One
can
go
further and consider
whether
building
10
had
a
ritual character.
Certainly
the
small
interior
space
of the
building
suggests
that
the
patterned
character of
the small
groups
of
pottery
is
the result of
a
number of
repeti
tive
actions
carried
out
by
single
persons.
Building
10's close
connection
to
the
palace
leads
us
to
hypothesize
that
a
rite
of
passage may
have taken
place
here,
one
that
included the
use
and
deposition
of conical and
tripod
cups
which
may
have contained
offerings,
a
straight-sided
cup
that
might
have been used for
pouring,
and,
in
two
groups,
a
brazier-rhyton
that
must
have been used for
pouring
or
libations.21
It is
possible
that
nearby pit
11
was a
pond
related
to
this
rite
of
pas
sage.
At least
during heavy
rains,
this
pit
may
have filledwith runoff
water
from the
palace
roof and the
adjacent
pavements,
although
the sediments
would have
rapidly
absorbed the
water.
This
water
may
have been used
in
a
cleansing
ritual.The fact that
one
did
not
need
to
pass
by building
10
in
order to reach the
palace,
however,
suggests
that the
hypothesized
rite of
passage
would
not
have been
obligatory
and would
not
have been
meant
for
everyone.
A
quick
overview
of the other
access
routes
into
theNew Palace
sup
ports
the
interpretation
that the
entering
or
leaving
of the
palace
itself
may
have been
accompanied by
rites
of
passage,
but that these
were
by
no means
obligatory.22
No architectural
or
artifactual evidence for such
rites
has been
identified
near
the
north,
west,
or
southeast
entrances to
the
palace.
The
south
entrance,
however,
is
flanked
by
a
small
room
(XVIII. 1)
with cult
material,
including
an
incurved altar and
fire
boxes,
and the south
passage
into
the
palace
leads
directly
to
area
XVI.
1,
locus of thewell-known circular
stonewith cavities,which has been
interpreted variously
as a kernos, altar,
or
gaming
table.23 It
is
possible
that
these
installations,
too,
were
related
to
ritual
acts
carried
out
when
entering
or
leaving
the
palace.
It
is
unclear
as
to
why only
the northeast and
south
entrances
have
yielded
possible
evidence for
such rituals.
Giving
access
to
different
parts
of the
palace
(the
north
magazines
and the central
court,
respectively),
the
position
of
these
entrances
in
the
palace
does
not
appear
to
provide
an
explanation.
Perhaps
their
location with relation
to
the
town
is
sig
nificant.
Both
entrances
led
directly
from the
town
into
the
palace,
and
it
is
possible
that
visitors
from
those directions
were
required
or
wanted
to
perform
such
rites.
21.
Since
only
two
groups
included
lamps,
these
may
not
have been
required
for
the ritual but
would
have
served
merely
for
illumination.
22. Cf. Pelon
1992,
plans
13
and
14.
23.
Pelon
1988,
pp.
42-43.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:55:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/9/2019 Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia
12/12
SPECIAL, RITUAL,
OR
CULTIC
41
CONCLUSIONS
Having
established that
building
10
was
special
and
possibly
ritual
in
character,
can we
go
one
step
further
and
say
that
it
was
a
place
of
cult?
An uncritical
adoption
ofArthur Evans's
approach
would have induced us
to
name
building
10
immediately
upon
excavation
The Small
Sanctuary
of the
Tripod
Bowls. The
following
considerations
serve
to
demonstrate
how inadvisable
it is
to
apply
such
specific
labels without
thorough
analy
sis.
Certainly
we
can
say
that
building
10
and
its
surrounding
area
fulfill
a
number of
criteria listed
by
Renfrew
as
characteristic of cult
areas:24
[Ritual]
may
take
place
in
a
special
building.
(correlate
2)
The
structure
and
equipment
used
may
employ
a
number of
attention-focusing
devices,
reflected
in
the
architecture and
in
themovable
equipment.
(correlate 6)
The
chosen
place
will have
special
facilities for
the
practice
of
ritual,
e.g.,
altars, benches,
pools
or
basins of
water,
hearths,
pits
for
libations.
(correlate 8)
Special
portable
equipment
may
be
employed
in
the cult
practice,
e.g.,
special
receptacles,
lamps,
etc.
(correlate 12)
The sacred
area
is
likely
to
be rich
in
repeated
symbols
(redun
dancy).
(correlate
13)
The
symbolism
used
may
relate
to
that
seen
also
in
funerary
ritual,
and
in
other
rites
of
passage.
(correlate
15)
In
spite
of
the
correspondences
with Renfrew's
criteria,
however,
we
do
not
think
that the evidence
is
sufficiently
strong
to
allow the conclu
sion that the ritual practiced in this building was religious.We have no
clear evidence
of
a
divine
presence
or
of
an
effort
by
worshippers
to
come
into
contact
with
supernatural
forces.
There
are no
cult
images, figurines
of
adorants,
no
clear
sacrifices
or
votives,
and
no
imagery
of
cult.25 It
is
impossible
to
say
whether the
rituals that
may
have been
practiced
here
were
religious,
political,
or
magical,
because
we
simply
do
not
know.26We
have
vases
deposited
in
a
repetitive
pattern,
but
we
do
not
know what
they
contained.
We
are
not
even
certain
that
a
ritual
or
offering
took
place.
In
the absence
of
such
specific
information,
it
is
best
to
be
prudent
and call
building
10
a
special
and
possibly
a
ritual
place,
but
not
a
cult
area.
We
must
wait
for
the
excavation of similar
assemblages
in
association
with
unequivocal cult objects or architecture beforewe can consider extending
the
interpretation
of
building
10 from
possibly
ritual
to
cultic.
24.
Renfrew
1985,
p.
19;
italiciza
tion
added
by
the
present
authors.
25. For a discussion of cult
images
and
symbols,
see
Gesell
1985,
pp.
2-3.
26.
The
repetitive
pattern
in
the
pottery
assemblage
of
building
10 is
thus far
unique
inMinoan
Crete.
Pot
tery
assemblages
identified
in
the
litera
ture
as
ritual
or
cultic
often include
a
high
proportion
of
pouring
and
drink
ing
vessels,
but
none
display
discrete
repetitive
groups
of
vase
types
like
those
seen
in
building
10
(see
Cultraro
2000
regarding
a
funerary
ritual
assem
blage
from
AyiaTriada;
Nowicki
1994;
Watrous 1996, p. 49; Tyree 2001; Van
de Moortel
2006).