How Can Archaeologists Identify and Interpret The Remains of Religious Activity?

From the basis of these primary indicators, a list of features that conform to the criteria postulated above have been established to act as a map or key in deciphering otherwise confusing discoveries such as the presence of special fixtures in unlikely places, or the deliberate destruction of intricate and valuable objects carefully positioned in the ground.  Having identified these items and their settings as religious, the tentative process of interpretation can begin.  Darvill terms this ‘prehistory as sociology’; archaeology is reliant upon the study of objects and the relationship between these objects in time and space.  From this relationship, Darvill goes on to set out ‘three distinct but interrelated levels’ that can be inferred to reveal clues to human behaviour and psychology: the functional considerations of the object (axes for chopping, buildings for habitation); the use of objects as an extension of language, to communicate information, ideas and even a sense of identity and thirdly, the context of the objects and the implied associations therein.  The objects were selected for reasons of significance and meaning, and arranged in ways that reflect mental processes, the association of ideas and ideological statements.  The ornate sword found buried alongside the grave’s incumbent may reflect the wealth and fighting prowess of the deceased as well have been considered necessary for battles in the afterlife.

Within the Roman garrisons at Hadrian’s Wall, indications of religious activity have been found in the Mithraeum at the fort of Carrawburgh.  The temple situated here fulfils the four primary indicators of ‘cult activity’ cited by Renfrew & Bahn as well as many of the features listed as anticipated types of physical evidence in such sites.  The temple is built adjacent to the wall, demonstrating its status as a construction specifically designed and intended for a particular use, and the celebrants’ attention is further directed and focused upon entry by the series of altars originally situated to the rear and depicting the image of the deity, whose presence is thus symbolised.  There are areas in the temple for public congregation, which would have originally contained pews (or ‘podia’) before the area of the altars and the image of Mithras, and therefore a distinct demarcation between the boundary zones of the human and the god is present.  Ritual participation and offerings are indicated by the large quantities of chicken bones recovered in the similar Mithraeum at Walbrook together with information from other Mithraea that during certain status advancement ceremonies, ‘the initiate’s hands were bound with chicken gut’ as well as the less gruesome interpretation that ritual feasts included chicken. So it can be asserted that chickens were a versatile component of Mithraic religious activity.

Not all Mithraea are so clearly distinguishable from their surroundings.  L. Michael White cites examples of smaller ‘private’ chapels or cells of cult activity as separate from the main or ‘public’ expressions of devotion to the same deity.  According to White, ‘it is far more common… to find Mithraea established within pre-existing structures including warehouses, baths… vaulted subterranean chambers… and private homes.’  So the archaeologist investigating the evidence of Mithraic worship has to contend with Renfrew and Bahn’s caution mentioned earlier of such activity being ‘embedded’ within other, more functional and conventional contexts.  Evidence for the cult of Mithras is easier to identify in this regard than other religions due to the consistent separation between the ‘boundary zones’ on however small a scale.  The original property would have had ‘architectural adaptation [that] might be nothing more than minimal internal remodelling to demarcate and segregate the sanctuary from its physical surroundings’ that would help identify it as a site of religious activity in accordance with the primary indicators and lists of anticipated physical evidence.  The Minoan caves in Crete are less easily classified as the evidence for their use as places of ritual consists of pottery, animal bones and figurines.  Of those three, two could easily be equally persuasive as evidence for the caves serving habitation or funerary purposes.

The interpretation of these sites is even more difficult.  The use of literary sources or contemporaneous evidence of myths can help to explain features for which there would be no other contextual reference – one of the Minoan Caves is named after Eileithyia from a reference in Homer’s Odyssey - but without external or corroborative evidence to assist the archaeologist, some subjects remain speculative.  How to explain the ‘mass of burnt material including chain mail and horse harness’ at Folly Lane in St Albans found in a pit beside a shaft in the centre of a cult enclosure? Or the enduring fascination of our ancestors with lakes, springs and bogs where the ‘notable assemblages’ of coins and weapons are amongst the spectacular votive deposits?  The argument that coins could have been buried for the more mundane but practical reasons of hording does not fit so well with recovered weapons of obvious value (due to the intensity of labour required to produce them and the intricacy of their design and decoration) that have been deliberately damaged either to prevent further use (and therefore to deter theft) or as part of yet another unknown ritualistic activity.  And it seems unlikely that Tollund Man was just a random example of the violence of ages past given the fact that ‘ancient authorities are unanimous in describing religious practices… [of] the Celts and the Germans… [with] bloodthirsty human and animal sacrifices and the depositing of offerings in scared places such as enclosures, ponds or streams.  The manner of his death and the location of his body both serve to suggest – albeit not irrefutably so – that it was a ritualistic rather than judicial or criminal murder.

The archaeologist’s ability to identify the remains of physical activity would appear to be much easier than the subsequent task of interpretation.  Renfrew & Bahn refer to Michael Coe’s success in his analysis of Classic Mayan ceramics, to attempt to begin the process of revealing the significance of the markings on the evidence left by those such as the Mesoamericans who do not have supporting literary evidence comparable to the Greek or Roman societies but bemoan the need for a ‘painstaking study of … different representations, in the hope of spotting recurrent attributes associated in a definable way with specific individuals’.  Whereas there are universal procedures for the approach in initially defining evidence as that which denotes religious activity - with guidelines based in no small part upon the enduring human experience and reaction to religious fervour and belief - the ease of interpretation remains dependent on whether the evidence is abundant and supported with other sources such as Greek or Roman remains, or whether it evidence from a less well documented era.  This forces the archaeologist to find their way through the intellectually precarious business of reliance upon classifications ranging from the Systems Theory or Marxist Analyst with only intelligent guesswork based on ever expanding experience as their guide in what amounts to educated speculation.

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Robert J. Wenke ‘Patterns in Prehistory – Humankind’s First Three Million Years’

4th Edition (1999) Oxford University Press

• Gilbert Charles-Picard (editor) ‘Europe in the Bronze & Iron Ages’

in the Larousse Encyclopaedia of Archaeology (1974) published by Hamlyn p.345

• Timothy Darvill ‘Prehistoric Britain’ 

9th edition (2000) published by Routledge

• ,  (Editor),  (Illustrator) ‘The Temple of Mithras, London’ (1999) published by English Heritage Publications.

• L. Michael White ‘The Social Origins of Christian Architecture: Building God’s House In The Roman World: Architectural Adaptation Among Pagans, Jews & Christians’ 

(1996) published by Trinity Press International

• J. T. Hooker ‘Minoan Religion in the Late Palace Period’ in O. Krzyskowska & L. Nixon (editors) ‘Minoan Society’ (1983) published by Bristol Classical Publications pp.137-142

• John Hunter & Ian Ralston ‘The Archaeology of Britain – An Introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution’ 

2nd Edition (20000 Published by Routledge p.123

• Colin Renfrew & Paul Bahn ‘Archaeology: Theories, Methods & Practice’

3rd Edition (2000) published by Thames & Hudson

---