How can archaeologists recognise and interpret the remains of cult and ritual activity?
Defining the term “cult” could take an essay in its own right, and many books have been written on this subject from many different academic perspectives over the centuries, with little sign that modern debates are flagging.
Definitions are varied, as if the term itself is alive.
Chambers Student Dictionary defines a cult as a “system of religious belief, with worship, devotion, enthusiasm and often excessive admiration”. The Pocket Oxford Dictionary states “a religious worship especially as expressed in ceremonies; study and pursuit or worship of (often of something elevated into factitious importance:..)”. Collins Plain English Dictionary explains ” a religious group with its own special rituals, especially one that is seen as dangerous. …something that is popular or fashionable among a small group of people e.g. Dr Who”.
Modern psychiatric definitions define cults loosely as hierarchies governed by a charismatic male – most cults do have male figureheads, but the gender issue of male female cults and/or male female sites has resulted in a flood of modern books on this subject. The cult of Mary is a well documented example (Mary Clayton).
Today, anthropologists discuss the different structures of human behaviour and psychologists study the effect of hierarchies versus team organisation in occupational models for city businesses. New Age studies of ancient societies blended with complex mixes of modern shamanism, compete with the money markets and existing power structures to make this area of study somewhat unique. Works by J G Frazer and even Tolkein have all added to this potent brew. In effect, the study of cults is the study of human behaviour – all of it.
There is evidence to show the suppression, neglect or outright destruction of cults and sites in the historical and in the written record (for example the deliberate and systematic destruction of British sites by the Church in the 14th century Ann Woodward). Ironically, the practice of the Romans and of the Christian Church of building over older sacred sites has preserved a great deal too (Leslie Alcock).
Also, often sites have only been excavated only down to Roman foundations, thus questions about earlier usage have not been asked (Ann Woodward). This pattern is seen many times in the historical record, indeed we even have the justification for most of it in the written record. Thus the study of cults is the study of the entrails of human behaviour – in much the same way that Haruspices (gutgazers) did of old.
Recent land right claims of Aboriginals in Australia have resulted in studies by social anthropologists looking at the definitions of cultural identity, and with the American Indians and modern social attitudes joining the debate, indigenous peoples have become influential in the archaeological and historical debate. No wonder David Carmichael states that “ascription of value to remains of the past is often a political decision”.
This would seem as true today as it ever was, and this means that archaeologists have to tread carefully when they prepare to excavate, as this can invariably destroy sites and upset indigenous people who oftentimes would prefer the sites remain undisturbed. This raises interesting questions about British sites, where the beliefs of our ancestors were suppressed many centuries ago, thus claims for special interest in sites are difficult to demonstrate by modern interested parties.
Also, most of the history is below modern Christian sites, which can never be excavated. Discussions about sacred landscapes in Britain are even more difficult to demonstrate, as at Glastonbury, where evidence for pagan sites are often mythological and the actual remains are Christian.
We can study cults from many different perspectives, as many flourish today. Also, from the historical record, we have a great deal of literature about the cults of the past, some still extant today in the form of major world religions.
Many disciplines actively study the modern phenomena, and generally today, cults have a bad press. Few people today would consider themselves cult members as they go to their Star Trek convention, or go to church or to work, support the monarchy or enjoy their latest hobby.
The study of cults is political, possibly taboo in some areas, sacred and profane in others. Thus this subject is emotionally charged, so archaeologists will need some structure to work within and to analyse the subject matter, facts, finds, sites and artefacts that have been discovered. It also raises some interesting questions about prospective sites for excavation, and whether access and permissions can be granted.
Interpretation of finds may be quite inflammatory, as in whether or not Ice Maiden is European or Mongoloid by culture, before we even try to interpret her tattoos or her grave goods.
Within history as a discipline, a great deal is known about cults and the action of religious belief on cultures and societies. This also includes a wealth of information about burial practices and also the influence of beliefs on everyday activities and ordinary sites.
Archaeologists have gleaned a great deal of information about ritual and ideology woven through the fabric of everyday life (Ann Woodward).
The power of Pilgrimages and of sacred sites is well documented and discussed. Also from the historical record, we know a great deal about what happened in cultures and societies from all over the world when belief systems clash.
Even when sites have been destroyed, we can reconstruct some evidence from what is written; often importantly, what is not written, or what is inferred or what arguments are countered by those writings that remain.
Archaeology cannot always be lucky enough to dig up the Nag Hammadi documents (Jean Doresse) or the Dead Sea Scrolls (Edmund Wilson), where these amazing discoveries allowed close analysis of extant and discovered texts, often only known previously by surmise, to become public domain and to fuel the modern debates even more.
Studies world wide also show that certain sites remain important despite the changing background of culture and belief, and local sacred sites can become universal through publicity and rumour, as at Ayers Rock, where modern tourists have returned their souvenir rocks due to a belief that they can bring bad luck if removed (ed. D L Carmichael).
We also know that potent mixtures of beliefs underpin the historical record, making this a difficult subject for analysis, not just in archaeology. Many sacred sites or areas are not marked by any archaeological record capable of being recognised, which poses difficult problems for conservation and preservation of cultural landscapes and sacred sites (ed. D L Carmichael).
However, we do have a great deal of information, though undoubtedly, much remains to be discovered or may be lost for all times. The understanding that there are many common themes linking what people regard as sacred, that there are ‘broad global similarities’, commonly natural features of the landscape, common colour symbolism, their common use as sanctuary and their part in complex and political suppression (ed. D L Carmichael), has allowed deduction and extrapolation from one occurrence or site to another.
Many previous interpretations have been accused of being Eurocentric, or of vested bias, so a wider analysis is now being written and spoken about, both by professional researches and by New Age thinkers and many others.
That which cannot be excavated may simply be reinvented, as in Douglas Monroe’s book, which uses modern concepts of magic, blended with American, British and Argentinean shamanism to recreate the teachings of Merlin. Right or wrong, this technique is now widespread and respected, and it is based in the belief that that which has been deliberately destroyed can be deliberately recreated.
With the modern passion in therapy for karmic path work for reconnecting to cultural roots, it is not just historians and archaeologists who are investigating this area.
Though archaeology has uncovered a great deal, analysis of such a complex subject will be fraught with difficulty. Renfrew and Bahn’s clear outlines offer some basic structure, warning researchers not to overclassify religious activity, and for the distinction of the ceremonial.
The four point listing of definite boundaries for defining religious activity of a focus of attention, a boundary between worlds, the presence of a deity and the participation of offerings gives clear guidelines in a morass of swirling confusion. However, whether these outlines would adequately define a Homeopathic convention or a Spice Girls concert is a little hazy.
Renfrew and Bahn’s definitions may well be adequate for our purposes, and will allow for analysis of most sites within acceptable parameters. However, do we assume that people of the past were less complex that the people of today, and that they didn’t have their equivalent popular beliefs, or even structures that survived the suppression of centuries, maybe even because of that suppression?
We definitely need guidelines in this area, but we must also remain alive to the gross stereotype effect of simple definitions, and be prepared to work with other disciplines in the analysis of this material.
This subject area is the property of all interested parties, and is central to humanity understanding itself.
In summary, this is a difficult area, and recognition of remains, let alone their interpretation will always be hard. If we did not know the ancient fish symbol for the early Christians, we might have missed an enormous wealth of material.
What sign, if any, did the Druids use, and how many clues have been thrown away or missed, or wrongly classified due to ignorance or predominant cult beliefs? How do we study verbal cultures that have been suppressed in distant history when we only have their adversaries texts extant?
Also, it appears that different disciplines are using different definitions of the word cult, and with the negative connotations of this word, many people would resist its use in certain contexts and wrongly apply it in others.
As any object can be used as a religious object, separating cult objects from domestic objects may not always be possible. We must therefore be alive to all possibilities in this area, and study both the modern end and the historical end of this phenomenological spectrum as one.
References
- ed. D L Carmichael, J Hubert, B Reeves, A Schanche Sacred Sites, Sacred Places Routledge 1994
- Mary Clayton The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary in Anglo-Saxon England Cambridge University Press 1990
- Jean Doresse The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics Inner Traditions International 1986
- J G Frazer The Golden Bough MacMillan Press 1972
- Douglas Monroe The 21 Lessons of Merlyn: A Study in Druidic Magic and Lore Llewellyn Publications 1996
- Renfrew and Bahn Archaeology Thames and Hudson 1996
- Edmund Wilson Israel and the Dead Sea Scrolls Collins 1969
- ed. Stephen Wilson Saints and their Cults: studies in religious sociology, folklore and history Cambridge University Press
- Ann Woodward Shrines and Sacrifices English Heritage 1992