trilithons found in the niches played an important part in the ritual.
Sir Arthur Evans in his famous article _Mycenæan Tree and Pillar Cult_
has suggested that in Malta we have a cult similar to that seen in the
Mycenæan world. This latter was an aneiconic worship developed out of
the cult of the dead; in it the deity or hero was represented by a
baetyl, i.e. a tree or pillar sometimes standing free, sometimes placed
in a 'dolmen-like' cell or shrine, in which latter case the pillar often
served to support the roof of the shrine. In Malta Sir Arthur Evans sees
signs of a baetyl-worship very similar to this. Thus at Hagiar Kim we
have a pillar still standing free in a niche, and another pillar, which,
to judge from its shape, must have stood free, was found in the
Gigantia. On the other hand, at Mnaidra we have pillars which support
slabs in a cell or shrine, and at Cordin several small pillars were
found which must originally have served a similar purpose.

There can hardly be any doubt that Sir Arthur Evans is right in seeing
in the Maltese temples signs of a baetylic worship. But is he right in
his further assertion that the cult was a cult of the dead? Albert Mayr
assumes that he is, and endeavours to show that the 'dolmen-like' cells
in the niches are not altars, but stereotyped representations of the
dolmen-tombs of the heroes worshipped. He thinks that the slabs which
cover them are too large for altar-tables, and that the niches in which
they stand are too narrow and inaccessible to have been the scene of
sacrificial rites. Neither of these arguments has much force, nor is it
easy to see how the cells are derived from dolmens. The fact is that the
word 'dolmen-like,' which has become current coin in archæological
phraseology, is a question-begging epithet. The Maltese cells are not
like dolmens at all, they are either trilithons or tables resting on a
pillar. They are always open to the front, and instead of the rough
unhewn block which should cover a dolmen they are roofed with a