Methodological Considerations for Measuring Ritual and Religion in Ancient Sicily
What was the ritual landscape of indigenous central-west Sicily and how did it change after Greeks and Phoenicians settled on the coasts? Written accounts of indigenous Sicilian religion are basically nonexistent; most of the evidence available for interpreting it consequently comes from the archaeological record.
As is often the case when it comes to both archaeology and religion, interpretations of such evidence demand two basic assumptions. The first regards how to approach “religion.” This is not the place for entering into the technical minefield surrounding the question of whether and how religion can be defined. The most expedient thing to be said is that when the evidence is silent, there are few alternatives except to clarify terms and lay out one's own interpretive expectations. Drawing on the work of scholars in sociological and anthropological studies of religion, I have therefore proceeded along the definitional premise that at the heart of most religious systems, past and present, is the idea that a group recognizes a type of superhuman force(s) to exist and tries to interact with it or them through various ritual practices.The second assumption is that even with a nominal definition like the one above, religion still must be recognized on the ground, and therefore must be defined more empirically. The empirical definition that I have used in this work can be described as an archaeological framework of religious correlates, and is a method that has been used by a number of other scholars following an early model set out by Colin Renfrew in The Archaeology of Cult (1985) for the study of Bronze Age Phylakopi. Renfrew proposed that religion, defined as “culturally patterned interaction with culturally postulated superhuman beings,” could be interpreted through a “framework of inference” that included “general if not necessarily universal” correlates for ritual practice, all of which should provide “(1) evidence for expressive actions (of prayer, sacrifice, offering, etc.) and (2) some indications that a transcendent being is involved” (Renfrew 1985, 18, 20).
The method has met fair criticism since it was first put forward: it operates, for one, on the assumption that the material remains of religious ritual will differ in some way from the material of noncult activity (Blake 2005, 102). It also relies heavily on processual methods that favor the use of existing but rather isolated data to postulate predictions about other archaeological contexts (cf. Rutkowski 1986, ch. 1; Vermeule 1988). The criteria themselves can also be somewhat fluid and redundant.Despite such drawbacks, a classificatory approach still seems to be one of the most effective means of studying ancient religious change, particularly for evidence that is at least partly prehistoric. The use of deductive reasoning—another criticism of the model—also allows for “religion” to be a possibility wherever clusters of correlates appear; the more correlates present, the greater likelihood that a religious space is at play. This quality of the method in turn facilitates the comparison of religious developments across both time and space, as well as behavioral contexts—notably those associated with the funerary sphere—that otherwise might be overlooked.
In other work (Urquhart forthcoming) I elucidate the broader theological implications and rationale for these correlates, but for present purposes, I have simply listed the correlates here, with the notation that the more correlates attested for any one given context, the more likely the space in question featured religious activity. In addition, I set a minimum standard that four correlates must be attested in a single context for it to register as “religious” in the first place and thus merit inclusion in the wider analysis. As such, the material correlates used in this study are that the context:
1. Is located in a place with prominent natural associations.
2. Is located in an area set apart from other types of settlement space.
3. Features the use of specialized or distinctive architecture.
4. Makes a conspicuous public display of wealth or status, often with materials of high intrinsic or symbolic value.
5. Makes use of iconic or aniconic representations of the supernatural being/ power, which may allude to prayer or communication with the supernatural power.
6. Uses devices or elements of ritual to induce/heighten religious experience.
7. Has attention-focusing devices, such as altars, hearths, etc. present.
8. Used specialized facilities (pools, basins, hearths, benches) or equipment.
9. Has evidence of sacrificial practice.
10. Features the special deposition and/or treatment of particular items as votive dedications.
11. Has evidence for the offering, consumption of pouring away of food and drink.
12. Is rich in symbolism, particularly related to deities.
13. Has facilities that reflect a concern with cleanliness and pollution.