[anonymous], 'Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9503
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9503-[anonymous]-minoan
@@@@95.3.17, Marinatos, Minoan Religion
Nanno Marinatos, Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and
Symbol. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1993. Pp.
306. $47.95. ISBN 0-87249-744-5.
Nanno Marinatos, who for nearly two decades in numerous
notes and essays has been adding to our understanding of Minoan
religious image and practice, has now produced a comprehensive
study of Minoan religion encompassing the entire archaeological
record of Minoan Crete from the Early through the Late Bronze
Age. Here is a book rich in ideas and in detailed discussion of
a vast array of evidence. Thoroughly steeped in the local
interpretive literature of the subject, and informed by certain
directions in the method and theory of religious studies, this
book views the reconstruction of Minoan religion, for which there
are no written sources and only a restricted body of iconographic
ones, as relatively unproblematic. It proposes as its method a
reading of the evidence as if we already possessed knowledge of
the grammatical structure, syntax and vocabulary.
In Chapter One the reader is invited to consider briefly the
intellectual trends that have colored our understanding of
religion in past societies and to place the study of Minoan
religion in historical perspective. But in lieu of a clear
statement of the role of religion in human societies and the
changing forms of religion in the evolution of societal forms,
Marinatos offers only generalized asides to an "anthropology of
religion" and to the use of structural and semiotic theory (pp.
10-11) that well may induce students to ape these notions with
neither comprehension of their meaning and application nor with
an appropriate set of readings to introduce them to the subject.
This is not to denigrate Marinatos' contribution, for she offers
a much needed, concise critique of the work of Evans and Nilsson
and their followers (pp. 8-10) and pulls together in a
comprehensive manner evidence and arguments that her predecessors
and contemporaries have not succeeded in making clear. What is
missing, though, is a sense of the systemic interrelationships
among religious, social, political and economic organizations.
There is inadequate consideration of the evolution of a Minoan
religion as a part of the increasingly complex and unified
society that emerged in Crete during the second millennium B.C.E.
And, for an audience that presumably has not read much of the
literature dealing with religion, there is no introduction to the
issues that surround its study, for example the role of myth and
ritual, its relationship to ideology, and to the more mundane
forms of human activity.[[1]]
Chapter Two, entitled "The Cult of the Dead in Prepalatial
Crete", argues that we must find our early evidence of religion
in the monumental remains of burials, since such evidence from
settlements is "notably absent". Marinatos then posits a cult of
the dead celebrated through burial rituals which can be
reconstructed from the existing remains. The evidence of Early
and Middle Minoan burial chambers, she argues, emphasizes the
communal and collective nature of Minoan burial practice. The
chapter concludes with a presentation of probable objects of
ritual purpose found in the burials. Marinatos' interest in
these objects stimulates unsystematic speculation about their
purpose, e.g. the digression about the enigmatic "sheepbells",
the consideration of the models from the Kamilari tomb (which
seems slightly out of place insofar as these models do not date
to the Pre- and Protopalatial periods).[[2]] Although Marinatos'
interest in reconstructing the rituals surrounding death is most
evident in this chapter, her inclusion of a consideration of the
paintings of the Ayia Triada sarcophagus is particularly
problematic. In a sense it violates her dictum to reconstruct
religion based on the internal evidence, since this sarcophagus
dates from LM IIIA when Mycenaeans were present over much of
Crete and fully 300-700 years after the period in question. It
would better have been deferred for discussion in Chapter 11.
There are larger problems with this chapter. Although the
author emphasizes the communal and collective nature of Early
Minoan burial practice, she does not clarify what this tells us
about Early Minoan society (see especially, pp. 26-28). What the
reader needs to learn is that mortuary practice may relate to a
society's cosmogony,[[3]] and therefore may reflect some aspects
of religious belief. Here, some reference to the work of Emile
Durkheim would be useful.[[4]] In many societies the dead
mediate between the world of the living and that of the spirits;
therefore the location and care for the dead is part of the
process by which a society maintains its position within the
cosmic order and legitimizes its organization and territorial
location.[[5]] All of these ideas are well documented in the
archaeological record of Early Minoan mortuary remains but not
explained in this chapter. It has been pointed out by other
scholars that the use of collective ossuaries, though
characteristic of Early Minoan culture, endures throughout the
period of the first palaces and beyond. Thus, despite the
economic and probable political centralization that the founding
of the palaces implies, the persistence in the location of
settlements and places of burial, and by association probably the
form of landholding, implies the strength of the collective
nature of Minoan social organization.[[6]]
What are we to make then of the change towards individual
burial, which Marinatos thinks is introduced in jar and larnax
burials in EM III and which continues through MM? It is true, as
Marinatos asserts (p. 24) that this represents a change to
emphasis on the individual, but it is equally important to stress
that these new burial forms continue to be stored in large
collective tombs. Thus an important consideration not taken into
account here is what the continuation of the collective tombs
signifies. The conclusion, drawn by some scholars, is that the
sense of community was so strong in Crete that despite the shift
to jar and larnax burial individual identity continued to be
suppressed during the period of the first palaces. Instead the
author leads the reader to think that there is increasing
monumentalization of burial "for the ruling elite", a statement
based on the meager evidence from one context, Chrysolakkos at
Mallia, and contradicted everywhere else. Of course, this is not
to say that status differentiation did not exist, as the evidence
of wealthy individualized grave goods demonstrates varying
degrees of stratification.[[7]] But it does suggest that the
centralization concomitant with the establishment of the first
palaces was not so pervasive as to restructure the social
relations that had obtained in traditional areas of settlement
throughout the Early Bronze Age.
Likewise, the presentation of the origins of Minoan religion
is not seen to be a problem, and Marinatos delays treatment of
outdoor peak sanctuaries until chapter 4, when her discussion is
well into the different facets of the religion of the palaces.
Consideration of the outdoor areas of cult activity, however, is
central to any discussion of the origins of Minoan religion for
two reasons. First, there has been debate as to whether the peak
sanctuaries were established before or after the foundation of
the first palaces. The implications of this problem are that if
they precede the palaces then they reflect local religious belief
and activity, whereas if they follow the palaces they represent
the imposition of belief and practice by the elite in the palaces
over a surrounding territory. Second their distribution,
especially the change in their distribution from pre-palatial
through Neopalatial times, is instructive about the centralizing
changes in the organization and administration of Minoan religion
during the two palace periods. These issues are considered
neither in this chapter nor in Chapter 4 where the peak
sanctuaries are discussed.
Since the Chrysolakkos complex was discussed in Chapter 2
and emphasis was placed on how it illustrates some continuity
with the prepalatial period, one might expect the next chapter to
focus on the issues surrounding developments in religious
activity during the protopalatial period. As we have seen, the
peak sanctuaries played an important role in this development,
and so too did the centers of the Protopalatial period with their
variety of structures. Thus the exceptionally well documented
artifacts from Quartier Mu--including sealings, figurines,
incised votive vessels, and Linear A inscriptions, and the cult
rooms in the west facade of the first palace at Phaistos need to
be considered in general and specifically compared to the
assemblages of the peak sanctuaries.[[8]] This evidence of
worship provides clues to the degree of integration of religious
activity at the palace sites and in their surrounding
territories. Without following the progression from Early Minoan
hamlet and village to Middle Minoan town and palace site, the
reader cannot easily detect the developmental thread in ritual
practice in Minoan religion.
Instead Marinatos proceeds in Chapters 3 and 4 to explore
the notion that the palaces were primarily temples. This is one
of the more enlightening and cogently argued parts of this book.
Her consideration of the formal planning elements of the palaces
as having an ideological basis, and her view that the west courts
and the formal sidewalks that lead to and through them serve to
facilitate religious activity is well founded, although it may be
too speculative to identify rituals for the dead as taking place
in them. More analysis of the relationship between paved areas
and sidewalks in tomb complexes (e.g. Koumasa, Pyrgos-Myrtos) as
well as in the palace centers (e.g. Quartier Mu, the Crypte
Hypostyle and Agora) would better test that claim.
To bolster the centrality of the palaces in cult activity
the author follows with a very complete discussion of frescoes in
the palaces. The frescoes illustrate the variety of rituals that
may have been celebrated there. Unfortunately, the casual reader
may miss the note of caution only registered well into the
discussion, namely that much of the fresco material dates to the
LM III period, an observation that diminishes Marinatos' argument
that the frescoes were organized programmatically. Thus, for
example, the discussion of the Campstool Fresco, would probably
be better understood in the context of Mycenaean Knossos, and
perhaps it would be well to observe in the discussion of the
so-called Palanquin Fresco that it contains the same elements as
the Campstool one. Perhaps there should have been an attempt to
isolate the frescoes of probable LM III date from the others.
Nonetheless this section is particularly welcome for its
attention to the location of the frescoes in the palace. An
unnoticed problem regarding the frescoes in the so-called
Domestic Quarter is the observation in the new plan of the palace
that the "Grand Staircase" is not accessible from the central
court.[[9]] Since the author wishes to situate the palace as the
cosmic center of Minoan religious activity, it would be
worthwhile to observe the extent to which Minoan art, lacking an
iconography of human power, focused on architectural
displays.[[10]]
Having now amplified her contention that much of the palace
was permeated by religious symbolism, Marinatos proceeds in
Chapter 4 to explore in detail areas in the palace where ritual
took place. Expanding upon an earlier article on the "Minoan
polythyron", the author presents a detailed analysis of the
architectural elements of the so-called "residential quarters"
and their relative disposition to one another. Her analysis
breaks the confines laid down by Evans and strikes out in a new
and productive direction. Whether right or wrong, Marinatos'
argument that the adyton (Evans' 'lustral basin'), pier and door
arrangements, and Minoan hall are part of an area used for ritual
permits fresh thinking and provides a much more coherent
explanation of this suite of rooms than previously. It also may
fit better with our contemporary sense that the palaces were not
inhabited by a monarchy, and that such a lineal social
organization is foreign to Minoan culture.
In her discussion of the "pillar crypt" Marinatos again
refocuses the question of interpretation by broadening the lines
of the argument. Although some may not accept her interpretation
of these remains, it is salutary to have the rooms with pillars
at Apesokari, Fournou Korfi-Archanes, the Temple Tomb at Knossos,
the two-pillared room at Ayia Triada, and the Tomb of the Double
Axes brought into the discussion, not only because they broaden
the chronological and distributional scope of the evidence, but
also because they seem to provide a linkage between mortuary and
domestic ritual practice. The presence of pillar crypts in the
houses of McEnroe's types 1 and 2a is of particular importance in
this discussion since, following Marinatos' argument,
identification of these as places of ritual action provides a
spatial setting that extends from the palace at the center of a
territory outwards to its periphery where the "villas" were
located. Thus it may be possible to think of such Neopalatial
complexes as those at Nirou Khani, Tylissos, and
Kannia-Mitropoleos, for example, as representatives of the palace
not just for economic and political purposes but also for the
practice of religion as part of the apparatus of a state that
needed to secure the allegiance--the "hearts and minds"--of
diverse groups, some of whom may have had reservations about the
centralized authority consolidated in the palaces during the
Neopalatial period. Religion, it has been observed,[[11]] is
often employed in the service of the political objectives of the
state. Thus formalization and control are key elements in the
state's participation in the creation of a hierarchy that
sanctions and authorizes religious performance.[[12]] Although
Marinatos proceeds in her discussion of "pillar crypts" to try,
through a simple structural analysis, to reconstruct a
relationship between chthonic and celestial deities, this misses
the more easily demonstrable point that these remains reflect
this major shift during the Neopalatial period in the
organization of society from what it had been during the
preceding Protopalatial period--a shift from strictly local
domains of control to larger territories that incorporated more
people, more resources and probably more diverse political
organizations that required a more complex form of management, in
which religion played a significant role. In view of this
process it might be fruitful not merely to describe the various
locales and furnishings of cult activity in the palace but to
consider how they might represent different facets of the
formalized religion of the Neopalatial period. Following the
lead of Anthony Wallace and Vernon Knight one might argue that
they are artifacts of different cult institutions that provide
different foci of ritual practice for different social groups, so
that the state can control a complex religious structure that
embraces a host of different ideologies.[[13]] This is an area
of research that requires much more systematic attention from
archaeologists as my comments on Chapters 6-10 below will
emphasize.
Marinatos acknowledges that religion becomes centralized and
makes this point forcefully in the next chapter on "Town Shrines
and Nature Sanctuaries". She dismisses the prevalent notion of
the "domestic shrine" and tries to refocus the issue in a more
fruitful manner by asking where and how the commoners worshipped.
Unfortunately, instead of developing this question in the context
of different periods in Minoan society, the author proceeds with
a discussion of specific instances. Many readers will react
negatively to this discussion, since there is no apparent
relationship between Chamaizi, the building at Rousses-Vianou and
the aforementioned type 2a house at Kannia. This discussion
simply emphasizes, as I have been arguing, the need for a larger
construct in which to situate the study of Minoan religion.
Marinatos' explanation that these instances "were the residences
of local lords, lower in rank than the lords of the mansions, but
high enough to be in charge of the arable land in the
countryside," though appealing and in large part probably
correct, fails to place them adequately in the context of
different socio-political realities within different political
economies. Thus the relationship between Chamaizi, the
Protopalatial peak sanctuaries and the buildings of Quartier Mu
(above note 10) needs to be explained as a phenomenon separate
from the consideration of the establishment of the villa system
as an extension of palatial governance during the Neopalatial
period.
The discussion of peak sanctuaries in Chapter 5 is somewhat
less satisfactory than the research published on them by Alan
Peatfield. It is misleading to state that the earliest peak
sanctuaries "were independent of official religion" without
having demonstrated that an official religion existed at that
time. More likely the peak sanctuaries represented one of the
most visible and comprehensive forms of religious practice for
individual communities in the prepalatial and protopalatial
period, and it was for this reason that the palaces took an
interest in them, because their incorporation into an emerging
palace-oriented religion was useful in establishing the
ideological primacy of the palaces over their territories. In
this regard, it would seem worthwhile to investigate the
probability that the relationship between the cult centers in the
palace and the peak sanctuaries in the outward region was
reaffirmed in periodic festivals, whose celebration was governed
by a sacred calendar and executed by a procession from palace to
sanctuary and back again.
So far Marinatos has considered the evidence for the
location and organization of Minoan cult. The next part of the
book, Chapters 6-11, discusses functional elements of religion:
the priesthood, divinities, shrines and rituals, nature, and
social rituals. Chapters 6-10 rely upon multiple readings of
Neopalatial iconography, largely as preserved on sealstones and
ring bezels or their impressions. Concerning these there is a
vast literature to which Marinatos has already contributed many
articles. Yet for all the research to date, there is little
which is informed by an explicitly stated and consistently
applied methodology. In her introduction Marinatos applauds
efforts by other scholars to apply structuralist approaches to
the study of religion and goes on to suggest that religion needs
to be decoded through application of semiotics (p. 11). Alas,
these chapters in no way demonstrate an explicit and consistently
applied method for decoding the images. Little attempt is made
to recover the rules, syntax and grammar of Minoan iconography.
In consequence readers may either accept uncritically her
classifications of images (and may wonder exactly what semiotics
is)[[14]] or be distressed by the weakness of argument for their
recognition--all the more so since they often seem likely but
unconvincing. Part of the problem, in my opinion, lies in the
fragmentation of her presentation. By deciding, as she states in
the introduction (p. 11), to emphasize in her study the practice
(and to some extent the beliefs) of the Minoans, she commits
herself to an elucidation of characters (priests and priestesses,
gods and goddesses, natural and built shrines) and rituals
(sacred marriage, epiphany ceremonies) that should result from a
semiotic investigation, not lead it. An example is in her
dislocated discussion of gesture (which had been identified as a
critical area for further study by L. Morgan).[[15]] Rather than
assembling all the gestures of females and examining how they are
differentiated in the context of the settings in which the
females operate, Marinatos chooses in Chapter 7 to associate a
certain set of gestures to deities, and then in Chapter 8 in her
discussion of "High Priestesses in Front of Shrines" she
differentiates goddesses from priestesses according to gesture;
yet there is no mention of gestures in her earlier discussion of
the distinguishing characteristics of priestesses (Chapter 6).
Her lack of focus on the social and political processes that
affect the formation of ritual and management of religion also
hinders her ability to provide reasons for the emergence of a
religious iconography. Thus no explanation is given for the
emergence of the priesthood, though it is well known that it
represents the establishment of offices to control and set
orthodox management of rituals.[[16]] Her lack of explicit
application of semiosis leads to an assertion that the "signs for
sacred space are columns, trees, and tree shrines" that neither
demonstrates the contexts that give meaning to these signs nor
examines how these icons became important symbols from the larger
visual structure and vocabulary of Neopalatial art. Chapter 10,
which deals with nature symbolism, is refreshingly more explicit
and comprehensive in explaining the sources and probable meanings
of the symbols, which are explained both in the context of
pan-Eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern iconography and in
reference to specific features of their use and context in the
Cretan environment. Likewise her argument for the hierarchical
organization of images of real and fantastic animals is closely
argued and convincing. But we need to know how these elements
are integrated into the larger statements of Minoan religious
iconography, a matter not pursued in this chapter.
Marinatos continues to argue on firmer ground in Chapter 10
for the existence of rites of passage in Minoan art. She
introduces the subject with a brief explanation of the stages of
such rituals, then presents the argument for identifying age
distinctions in the two genders. The following argument for
female rites of passage in Xeste 3 on Thera is already
well-known; tantalizing as it is, many will reserve judgment
until the final publication of the frescoes and their contexts,
since their locations on the walls of the building are critical
for the interpretation. No doubt many will give Marinatos'
interpretation the benefit of the doubt. Next she argues for
male rites as preserved in images on stone vessels and seals.
These images mostly depict athletic activities. The frequency of
representation on vessels may be a clue to return to consider the
context of vessels, as on the Procession Fresco from Knossos or
in the abundance of goblets found at Kato Syme.
Finally Marinatos turns to developments in Minoan religion
after the palaces, from ca. 1450 to ca. 1200 B.C.E. which, as she
admits, merits a separate monograph. She demonstrates areas of
continuity with palace religion yet emphasizes different and new
elements of this time. She provides a useful survey of the major
shrines with benches at various sites and considers them and the
figurines found in them in the context of Minoan and Mycenaean
bench sanctuaries of the post-palatial period, for which there is
an extensive bibliography. Missing from this discussion is the
role of the Cretan cylindrical models, which help define the
specifically Cretan form of post-palatial cult (see now: R.
Mersereau, AJA 97, 1993: 1-47).
The conclusion of this ambitious book is brief and to the
point. The author offers an appreciation of the distinctive
features of Neopalatial religion as well as a comparison to
religion elsewhere in the Near East and Egypt. She then suggests
lines for understanding the transformation of the religion in the
post-palatial and succeeding Dark Age. After such an exhaustive
excursion through the evidence readers might value an even more
detailed comparative study and a discussion of the probability
that Minoan cosmology and myth was in part retained to be
incorporated into historic Cretan and Greek religion.
This book is illustrative of a problem often encountered in
studies in Aegean pre- and proto-history. Despite a professed
interest in utilizing theory, when faced with the choice of
rigorously applying theories to particular cases, many scholars
avoid the confrontation and slip back into the much easier mode
of description employed by generations of scholars who wrote
culture history. But as Binford notes, the past, like the
present, consists of dynamic societal organisms with observable
systemic interrelationships, thus any approach to reconstructing
the past has to respect that dynamism and carefully employ
analogy and some form of systems analysis.[[17]] In this book no
such approaches are taken, and in consequence our understanding
of Minoan religion is not markedly advanced. The primary reason
for this failure, in the opinion of this reviewer, is the narrow
focus on arguing for the dominant role of religion in the Minoan
palaces without a complementary appreciation of the role of
religion in the evolution of the society. Marinatos indulges in
reconstructions of rituals and beliefs without providing dynamic
socio-political contexts and justifications for their practice.
One finishes the book wondering if all that was said could be
true, rather than coming away with a better understanding of how
in the context of the long evolution of Minoan society religion
played a vital and dominant role.
James C. Wright
Bryn Mawr College
NOTES
[[1]] E. Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,
Glencoe, IL: Free Press 1926; A. Wallace, Religion: An
Anthropological View New York: Random House 1966; W. Lessa
and E. Vogt, eds. Reader in Comparative Religion: An
Anthropological Approach, New York: Harper and Row 1972; C.
Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic
Books 1973; C. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, New
York: Oxford 1992.
[[2]] D. Levi, "La tomba a tholos di Kamilari pressa a Festos,"
Annuario della scuola archeologica di Atene, n.s. 23-24
(1961-62) pp. 61-69, esp. pp. 67, 135, passim.
[[3]] Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, pp. 98-125;
R. Hertz, Death and the Right Hand, Glencoe, IL: Free
Press 1960; L. Danforth, Death Rituals of Rural Greece,
Princeton: Princeton 1982, pp. 25-34.
[[4]] Geertz, p. 119 maintains that religion does not merely
"describe the social order but also shapes it."
[[5]] J. O'Shea, Mortuary Variability, New York: Academic
1984, p. 21; Geertz, p. 88.
[[6]] M. Dabney in M. Dabney and J. Wright, "Mortuary Customs,
Palatial Society and State Formation in the Aegean Area: A
Comparative Study," in Celebrations of Death and Divinity in
the Bronze Age Argolid (Proceedings of the 4th International
Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, June 10-16
1984), Stockholm 1987, p. 46; M. Dabney, The Later Stages of
State Formation in Palatial Crete," in Politeia (Proceedings
of the 5th International Aegean Conference, Heidelberg, April
10-13, 1994) R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds, in press.
[[7]] J. Soles, The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and
Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete, Hesperia
Supplement T. Whitelaw, "The Settlement at Fournou Korifi
Myrtos and Aspects of Early Minoan Social Organization," in
Minoan Society, O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, eds.
Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, pp. 336-330.
[[8]] L. Godart and J.-P. Olivier, Fouilles executees a
Mallia: Les Quartier Mu. Etudes Cretois 23 Paris 1978; B.
Detournay, J.-C. Poursat and F. Vandenabeele, Fouilles
executees a Mallia: Les Quartier Mu, Etudes Cretois
26, Paris 1980; L. Pernier, Il palazzo minoico di
Festos, volume I, Rome 1935, pp. 195-238; L. Pernier and L.
Banti, Il palazzo minoico di Festos, volume II, Rome
1951, pp. 572-81; and in general see G. Gesell, Town, Palace
and House Cult inb Minoan Crete, SIMA 67, Goeteborg 1985.
[[9]] S. Hood and W. Taylour, The Bronze Age Palace at
Knossos, BSA Supplementary Volume 13, London 1981, no. 88.
[[10]] See K. Krattenmaker and R. Mersereau, "Bringing the Palace
to the Sanctuary: Two- vs. Three-Dimensional Representation of
Architecture in Minoan Palatial Art," AJA 97 (1993) pp.
349-50; C. Boulotis, "Villes et Palais dans l'art
aegeen," in P. Darque and R. Treuil, eds. L'Habitat aegeen
prehistorique, BCH, Supplement 19 (1990) pp. 421-59.
[[11]] K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology, 1947,
p. 20; G. Conrad and A. Demarest, Religion and Empire
Cambridge 1984, 205-26; M. Bloch, "Religon and Ritual," in A.
Kuper and J. Kuper, eds. The Social Science Encyclopedia,
Boston 1985, pp. 688-701.
[[12]] Wallace pp. 257-58; R. Bellah, "Religious Evolution," in
W. Lessa and E. Vogt pp. 135-49.
[[13]] Wallace, p. 75-77 passim; J. Knight, Jr. "The
Institutional Organization of Misssissippian Religion,"
American Antiquity 51 (1985) 675-87; idem,
Mississippian Religion (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms
1981); in this regard see also Victor Turner's notion of the
"dominant symbol"--an all embracing symbol that encompasses
contradictory elements within an ideological structure (V.
Turner, The Forest of Symbols, Ithaca, NY 1967, pp.
20-32).
[[14]] A good primer is the article by Mieke Bal and Norman
Bryson, "Semiotics and Art History," Art Bulletin 73,
1991: 174-208.
[[15]] L. Morgan, The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera,
Cambridge 1985, pp. 117-18, passim.
[[16]] Bloch, p. 699; Bellah, pp. 135-49.
[[17]] L. Binford, "Archeological Perspectives," in L. Binford
and S. Binford, eds. New Perspectives in Archeology,
Chicago 1968, pp. 5-32. On analogy see, L. Binford, "Smudge Pits
and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological
Reasoning," American Antiquity 32 (1967) pp. 1-12.