Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia

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/


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.


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


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.




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.




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




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.




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.




8/12

SPECIAL, RITUAL,

OR CULTIC

Unknown location

SIP

i

1308-012 1308-013 1308-029 1308-021 1308-023




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.




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).




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.




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).

Documents

Special, Ritual, or Cultic: A Case Study from Malia