The Neo-Assyrian practice of interring clay figurines representing gods and other mythological creatures in clay boxes under floors has been interpreted through the translation of ritual texts as the culmination of a protective and purifying ritual. Though anachronistic, the meaning attached to these ritually-deposited objects is available, and therefore pertinent to this study. Nakamura (2005) suggests “that the deposition of these assemblages as dedicatory caches mimics the creation of world order and traces out paths of magical agency such that social reality becomes transformed (12).” As human action upon the divine in order to ensure divine protection of the human seems contradictory, so too do the actions associated with this series of rituals. Magical acts transform the clay figurine into the puissance associated with a certain deity, while the figurine is given over to the deity, and sealed within a tomb-like receptacle to preserve its vitality. Power and supplication, death and life combine in a mimesis to create reality.
The 2002 SENEPSE 8 volume about ritual and magic practices in the Near East, though not explicitly concerned with deposition, contains several articles that refer to the problem of meaning of patterned deposition and its relation to supernatural forces.
One example of an article explicitly concerned with structured deposition is the one by Gebel that focuses on depositions of human and animal remains within and between walls at Basta and Baja (2002). He suggests that there were many "magico-ritual practices, all related to the hiding of objects on walls or floors" (2002: 129) and offers many meanings for these practices. His Table 3 (2002: 130) suggests: unconscious territorial marking, protection and preservation, strengthening stability, documenting events, and witnessing events. In addition to his own treatment of these interpretations, many of these ideas are made explicit in other papers in the volume.
For example, Hermansen and Jensen, in their discussion of potential ritual structures at Shaqarat Mazyad, claim that deliberate deposition "served to focus attention" in a particular direction (2002: 100). This can be expanded to include other forms of depositions. They also claim that certain types of structurally-related depositions "emphasize boundary conditions and facilitate control of incursion" (2002: 101). This approach to liminality assumes the other world is
accessible, at least at times.
Building further upon this is the idea that the supernatural can be interacted with more casually; it can be bargained with, traded with, appeased, or used maliciously. This sophisticated
32
relationship presumes a well-defined entity, and code of appropriate behaviours which takes some of the mystery away from supernatural dealings. There is more likely a gradient between general spiritual incursion or attempts to concentrate or define where the inevitable incursion will take place all the way to personal relationships with specific, known entities. Partway between these extremes (perhaps exemplified by mystical Buddhism and Voudun) is the sort of interaction which requires an intermediary to act on behalf of a group. In this way, the relationship of people to the supernatural is neither individual nor collective; nor is it ambiguous or incomprehensible, nor rigidly delineated.
3.4.1 Gifts and the supernatural
The idea of a reciprocal gift economy with the supernatural is entailed in Mauss' Fourth Obligation: that of humans to give presents to the gods and to the spirits of nature and the dead. Mauss believes that the obligation arises from the principle of ownership, and places the "true" ownership of all things in the world in their hands. There is an Eskimo (Inuit) ritual in which shamans wearing masks depicting spirits invite these spirits to the dancing and gift exchange. When the ceremony is over, the shamans announce to the others that the spirits had a great time at their party and will send game animals in return (Mauss 1925: 14). For Mauss, the difference between reciprocal gift exchange with the supernatural and forcing or compelling the gods to give again more than they received is the concept of sacrifice.
The 1964 book by Hubert and Mauss described many forms of sacrifice and, most importantly, differentiated between sacrifice and offerings (11-12). To them, a sacrifice requires a living being; ergo artefacts can only be offerings. This departs from Mauss’ earlier work on gifts (Essai sur le don, 1925), in which he claimed that “sacrificial destruction implies giving something that is to be repaid (14)”. While I am inclined to agree that a sacrifice need not be alive, the goal of repayment is not necessary. This is especially true when a world-view entails that humans were created to worship and provide gifts to the gods. It is the unanticipated acts of devotion and sacrifice that sway the favour of supernatural forces. Similarly, the apotropaic properties of a dedicated item do not exist in repayment, but in the transformation of the object itself. Sacrifice changes the nature of what is offered, usually from a living nature to a dead one. As artefacts are inert, they cannot change their nature and thereby become sacred. This is clearly a departure from Mauss’ previous, metaphorical conception of sacrifice, wherein the vacuum created by delivering something of less value must be filled with something of greater value. Self-sacrifice does not always entail suicide. Ritual bloodletting in Mesoamerican cultures transformed the elite bloodletters to a sacred personage, whilst legitimizing their political and spiritual power. The sacrifice of dignity, often associated with mourning or rites of passage, temporarily transforms a person to a liminal, semi-sacred being. The concept of self-sacrifice including bloodletting or dignity bridges the two conceptions of sacrifice offered by Mauss at different stages in his life. A living person temporarily gives part of their life-force (blood or respect), changing their own nature to something consecrated, and creating a vacuum that is filled with social legitimization.
Gifts may be given as repayment, or to force repayment. One of the more common types of artefactual gift to the supernatural is a votive offering. Offerings have a subsidiary effect in a
33
community (Gregory: 1980), both by reducing the pool of valuable goods available to the community, and by creating prestige for the one who dedicates the votive.
Among the Baruya, certain sacred objects, such as bull-roarers and kwainatnie, are considered gifts from the gods to men, and as such, they cannot be given away by the men who keep them for the gods (Godelier 1999: 122). In this sense, the meaning of these ritual objects helps to define the relationship between the human and supernatural.