Meat in ancient Greece: sacrificial, sacred or secular?

Gunnel Ekroth Stockholm University, Sweden Meat in ancient Greece: sacrificial, sacred or secular ? * Abstract Based on osteological evidence from Greek sanctuaries, this article explores the notion that all meat eaten by the ancient Greeks came from sacrificed animals. Cattle, sheep, goats and pigs made up the bulk of the meat eaten but wild animals, dogs and horses were also consumed, though rarely sacrificed at the altar. Most meat eaten at ritual meals seems to have been boiled, a cooking method eliminating distinctions in origin and status between the animals and transforming all their meat into sacred meat. Different degrees of sacred meat can be distinguished and all animals killed and eaten in sanctuaries are not to be considered as sacrificial victims. Keywords Meat Consumption Animal sacrifice Sacred Greece Sanctuaries Bones Dogs Horses Wild animals The purpose of this paper is to explore the relation between animal sacrifice and the consumption of meat in ancient Greece in the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods (ca 700-100 BC). The starting point is whether all meat eaten by the Greeks came from sacrificial victims and whether there was no consumption of meat that was not linked to the sacred sphere. That meat for the Greeks was intimately connected to religion and to animal sacrifice in particular is beyond dispute, but should this lead us to assume that meat could not be regarded as “secular”, that is, as not having any connections to religion? * I would like to thank William Van Andringa for inviting me to the table ronde “Sacrifice et marché de la viande dans le monde romain. Rituels, commerce et pratiques alimentaires”. I am also grateful to Lovisa Strand for animated discussions of this topic and to the two anonymous reviewers for their pertinent comments. This article is part of a project funded by the National Bankof Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. Food & History, vol. 5, n° 1 (2007), pp. 249-272 10.1484 / J.FOOD.1.100193 250 Gunnel Ekroth The sacrifice of animal victims constituted the principal act of Greek religion.1 By this ritual men communicated with the gods, asked for help and support, and gave thanks for wishes already fulfilled. The animals sacrificed were usually eaten at the end of the ceremony and these collective meat meals fulfilled important functions both politically and socially. The principal kind of Greek sacrifice was called thysia and consisted of the killing of a domestic animal, usually cattle, sheep, goats or pigs, followed by its division and sharing between the divine recipient and the human participants. The animal was first consecrated to the god in question by a number of initial rituals at the altar. After the slitting of its throat, some blood was sprinkled on the front of the altar and the victim was opened up so that the internal organs could be inspected, especially the liver. Certain bones were cut out and burnt on the altar, the preferred sections being the thigh bones (femora) and the tail (caudal) vertebrae and the sacrum (the back part of the basin). These bones constituted the gods’ part of the sacrifice and the divinities were imagined as enjoying their share by inhaling the thick, fatty smoke, knise, rising from the burning bones. When the gods’ portion had been consumed in the fire, the animal’s body was butchered and the meat divided and distributed. Some prestigious and good meat-bearing parts, such as the back leg, might be deposited for the god on a sacred table next to the altar and these parts might also be given to the priest or priestess at the completion of the sacrifice. The rest of the meat was sectioned into equal portions based on weight and not on quality, and subsequently distributed to the worshippers or the group of people who were entitled to share in this particular sacrifice. A thysia sacrifice was concluded by a meal of the meat from the animal victim or victims, either in the sanctuary or the home, though on some occasions the meat was sold. In modern scholarship the structure and purpose of the thysia sacrifice have been interpreted as a way of defining the role and character of gods as distinct from that of men, but also as a means of differentiating men from wild animals, the principal criterion being what each group ate and how.2 1 The literature on Greek animal sacrifice is extensive, see, for example, Walter BURKERT, Homo necans. The anthropology of ancient Greek sacrificial ritual and myth (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 1-12; Walter BURKERT, Greek religion. Archaic and Classical (London, 1985), pp. 55-57; M. DETIENNE, J.-P. VERNANT (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks (Chicago/ London, 1989); Folkert VAN STRATEN, Hierà kalá. Images of animal sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden, 1995), passim; Sarah PEIRCE, “Death, revelry, and thysia”, Classical antiquity, vol. 12 (1993), pp. 219-260; Antoine HERMARY et al., “Sacrifice. Les sacrifices dans le monde grec”, in Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum, vol. 1 (Los Angeles, 2004), pp. 65-68 and 110-118; S. GEORGOUDI et al. (eds.), La cuisine et l’autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne (Paris, 2005). 2 Jean-Pierre VERNANT, “At man’s table: Hesiod’s foundation myth of sacrifice” in M. DETIENNE, J.-P. VERNANT (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks (Chicago/ London, 1989), pp. 21-86. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 251 The gods, who receive the smoke from the bones burnt on the altar, manifest their immortality by only inhaling this vapour, as they do not need to digest any meat. Men, on the other hand, have to eat to survive and by consuming the meat they demonstrate their mortality. As men eat in organised groups and also cook their meat, either by grilling or boiling it, they distinguish themselves from wild animals which consume their meat raw and in a disorganised manner. The importance of animal sacrifice is also evident in its intimate connection to the political and social structure of ancient Greece. Citizenship gave, apart from political rights, the entitlement to meat from public sacrifices, though the citizens were obliged to participate in these events as well.3 The distribution of the meat in equal shares, sometimes even by lot, and its collective consumption have been seen as means for underlining not only the equality of all the participants in the sacrifices but also the equal positions of the citizens in relation to each other. At the same time hierarchies, status and privileges could be established by to whom meat was given on a particular occasion.4 Meat clearly had a more complex role for the Greeks than simply being the enjoyable culinary outcome of animal sacrifice that aimed to please or contact the gods. The religious as well as socio-political significance of animal sacrifice and the division, distribution and consumption of meat have led modern scholars to claim that all the meat the ancient Greeks ate was linked to the sacrifice of domestic animals in some sense, and that meat normally could not be eaten except on the occasion of a sacrifice and according to its rules.5 Sacrifice has been seen a prerequisite for meat eating, and consequently the reason for performing animal sacrifice in antiquity has been explained as a way of legitimating the killing of animals for human purposes. 3 Marcel DETIENNE, “Culinary practices and the spirit of sacrifice” in M. DETIENNE, J.-P. VERNANT (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks (Chicago/London, 1989), pp. 1-20; Walter BURKERT, Greek religion…, pp. 55-59; Vincent J. ROSIVACH, The system of public sacrifice in fourth-century Athens (Atlanta, 1994), pp. 11-12 and 65-67; David WHITEHEAD, The demes of Attica 508/7 – ca. 250 BC (Princeton, 1986), pp. 205-208. 4 Pauline SCHMITT PANTEL, La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques (Roma, 1992), pp. 49-50. For the division and distribution, see Gunnel EKROTH, “Meat, man and god. On the division of the animal victim at Greek sacrifices” in A.P. MATTHAIOU, I. POLINSKAYA (eds.), Hieromnenon. Meletes eis mnemen M.H. Jameson (Athens, 2008), pp. 259-290. 5 Paul STENGEL, Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer (München, 1920), pp. 105-106; Jean-Pierre VERNANT, “At man’s table…”, pp. 25 and 38; Marcel DETIENNE, “Culinary practices…”, pp. 3-11; Jean-Louis DURAND, “Greek animals: toward a topology of edible bodies” in M. DETIENNE, J.-P. VERNANT (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks (Chicago/London, 1989), pp. 87-118 and “Ritual as instrumentality” in M. DETIENNE, J.-P. VERNANT (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks (Chicago/London, 1989), pp. 119-128; Walter BURKERT, Greek religion…, p. 55; Michael H. JAMESON, “Sacrifice 252 Gunnel Ekroth However, a certain hesitation can be detected in completely discarding the notion of “secular” meat among the ancient Greeks, that is, meat deriving from animals killed in the manner we would do today, without any kind of ritual framework. Even scholars who lean towards seeing all meat as ritual express some discomfort with this position, as there is evidence for slaughter of animals and handling of meat which, at least to us, does not show any indications of being set in a sacred context.6 Furthermore, if we look at the sources in more detail there is evidence that seems to disagree with the notion that all meat was connected to sacrifice. The model equating consumed meat with sacrificial meat from domestic animals, attractive as it may seem due to its link with and explanation of animal sacrifice within the social and political context, leaves aside meat from animals that had been killed at hunts, from species which were considered as not being fit for sacrifice or from animals that had died from natural causes, all three of which we know that the Greeks actually ate. Does the consumption of meat from these kinds of animals invalidate the notion of all meat being sacred, or are we to take this as representing a non-ritual handling of meat ? The evidence and its interpretation Most studies dealing with the issue of sacred meat have dealt with the written evidence, which of course is understandable, since it is here we get enough information to appreciate the problem.7 But the literary sources and the inscriptions and, most of all, the sacrificial terminology used, also illustrate the complexity of the issue. The principal Greek terms for “to sacrifice” and “a sacrifice”, the verb thyein and the noun thysia, certainly have these precise meanings but they also cover a wider semantic field, often used in reference to a meal or dinner without any particular indications of the divinity to which the animal had been sacrificed or and animal husbandry in Classical Greece” in C.R. WHITTAKER (ed.), Pastoral economies in Classical antiquity (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 87-88; Vincent J. ROSIVACH, The system of public sacrifice…, p. 88; James DAVIDSON, Courtesans and fishcakes. The consuming passions of Classical Athens (London, 1997), pp. 15-16. 6 Robin OSBORNE, “Women and sacrifice in Classical Greece”, Classical quarterly, vol. 43 (1993), p. 394, n. 11; Nikolaus HIMMELMANN, Tieropfer in der griechischen Kunst (Opladen, 1997), pp. 68-73; Heike LAXANDER, Individuum und Gemeinschaft im Fest (Münster, 2000), pp. 38-39; Jörg GEBAUER, Pompe und Thysia. Attische Tieropferdarstellungen auf schwarz- und rotfigurigen Vasen (Münster, 2002), pp. 1-15. 7 See, the literature referred to above, n. 5, as well as Guy BERTHIAUME, Les rôles du mágeiros. Étude sur la boucherie, la cuisine et le sacrifice dans la Grèce ancienne (Leiden, 1982), pp. 62-70 and 79-93. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 253 allusions to other ritual elements of a sacrifice.8 Still, thyein and thysia are religious vocabulary and the use of either of these terms definitely signals that the activity covered, including the consumption of meat, has to be linked to the cultic sphere in some sense. The question is to what extent a ritual such as a full-scale thysia sacrifice, in the manner described at the beginning of this paper, is to be imagined in each instance. Most of the written evidence for the handling of meat has been discussed in detail in Guy Berthiaume’s magisterial study Les rôles du mageiros, and Robert Parker has recently addressed the issue in a conference paper.9 Berthiaume argues that most meat can clearly be shown to have had a sacrificial origin. At slaughter in family contexts to obtain meat for the dinner table as well as by butchers in the market, a more scaled-down version of sacrifice is to be imagined, an “abattage rituel”.10 Outside the sphere of proper sacrifice and simplified rituals Berthiaume finds that there is evidence that animals could be killed and the meat eaten, though the Greeks tried to avoid this meat. It is evident that the written sources do not present us with a uniform picture of meat as sacred. The majority of the ancient texts talk about the killing of animals in a sacrificial context or with a religious terminology, but there are a number of cases where there are no ritual markers, at least not such as can be perceived by the modern reader. As when Theophrastos speaks of meat being sold in the market, he offers no elaboration of its status or origin, or of the degree to which this meat may have been perceived as sacred in any sense.11 The iconographical evidence presents a similar situation. Jean-Louis Durand, who initiated the study of vase-paintings as a source for sacrifice and meat handling, has argued that all meat represented in these scenes is to be viewed as handled within a ritual sphere.12 Most scholars have tended to follow him in considering the scenes of butchery, carrying of legs of meat and symposia as related to the motif of thysia sacrifice and therefore depicting sacred meat.13 Still, if we look at the vases showing 8 Jean CASABONA, Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec des origines à la fin de l’époque classique (Aix-en-Provence, 1966), pp. 76-82. 9 Guy BERTHIAUME, Les rôles du mágeiros…, passim. Robert Parker presented his paper at a seminar on animal sacrifice at the University of Reading in May 2007. 10 Ibid., pp. 62-70 and 79-93. 11 Theophrastos, Characters 9.4. 12 Jean-Louis DURAND, “Greek animals…”, pp. 87-118 and “Ritual as instrumentality”, pp. 119-128 (originally published in 1979); see also Jean-Louis DURAND Sacrifice et labour en Grèce ancienne. Essai d’anthropologie religieuse (Paris/Roma, 1986). 13 Sarah PEIRCE, “Death, revelry, and thysia”, pp. 219-260; Nikolaus HIMMELMANN, Tieropfer…, p. 73; Heike LAXANDER, Individuum und Gemeinschaft…, pp. 38-39; Jörg GEBAUER, Pompe und Thysia…, pp. 340-341. 254 Gunnel Ekroth the butchering of animals it is evident that it can be difficult for us to distinguish what is to be considered as sacred or not. Most scenes of butchering and meat handling contain no ritual references whatsoever. Occasionally the butcher and his assistant may wear wreaths but usually they do not, and only a few vases showing the butchering also include an altar where the god’s portion is being burnt.14 Similarly, a large group of scenes represent hind legs of animals being carried, held or given as gifts, often in an erotic context. From the epigraphical evidence we know that the hind leg occupied an important position within the sacrificial ritual, often presented to the god or given to the priest as payment, but none of the persons holding a leg can be identified as a priest, and the scenes where legs of meat are handled have no ritual or sacrificial indicators.15 Finally, in the symposion scenes meat is seen lying on tables or about to be eaten, more frequently on black-figure than red-figure vases, though there are hardly ever any signs of these meals being linked to sacrifice.16 However, it is clearly too simplistic to take the written and iconographical evidence that presents meat without linking it to religion as support for this meat being devoid of ritual connotations. The fact remains that ancient Greek does not seem to have had a term for slaughtering in a purely “secular” context and the literary sources do not talk about the killing of animals for alimentary purposes in a manner corresponding to modern practices.17 Here we have to be aware that one reason behind the modern difficulties in accepting the concept of meat as sacred in ancient Greece is surely to be found in Christianity’s attitudes towards animal sacrifice.18 When Christianity gradually took over in antiquity, one of the great challenges was to wrench slaughter and meat-eating away from the 14 See Folkert VAN STRATEN, Hierà kalá…, V160, fig. 123, black-figure column-krater, London BM B 362. 15 For the handling and contexts of the back legs, see Jörg GEBAUER, Pompe und Thysia…, pp. 332-337; Victoria TSOUKALA, “Legs of meat and civic identity on late 6th- and 5th-century B.C. Attic vases”, Hesperia, vol. 77 (2008), forthcoming. For the epigraphical evidence, see Brigitte LE GUEN-POLLET, “Espace sacrificiel et corps des bêtes immolées. Remarques sur le vocabulaire désignant la part du prêtre dans la Grèce antique, de l’époque classique à l’époque impériale” in R. ÉTIENNE, M.-Th. LE DINAHET (eds.). L’espace sacrificiel dans les civilisations méditerranéennes de l’antiquité. Actes du colloque tenu à la Maison de l’Orient, Lyon, 4-7 juin 1988 (Paris, 1991), pp. 17-19. 16 On symposion scenes with meat, see Jörg GEBAUER, Pompe und Thysia…, pp. 448-470. For a rare case of a symposion scene including an altar, see François LISSARRAGUE, Pauline SCHMITT PANTEL, “Spartizione e comunità nei banchetti greci” in C. GROTTANELLI, N.F. PARISE (eds.), Sacrificio e società nel mondo antico (Roma, 1988), p. 219, fig. 3 b, red-figure stamnos, Oxford 1965.127. 17 See Jean-Pierre VERNANT, “At man’s table…”, p. 25. 18 Jean-Louis DURAND, “Greek animals…”, pp. 87-88; Nikolaus HIMMELMANN, Tieropfer…, pp. 60-63. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 255 pagan cults of which they had formed the core. The killing and butchering of animals had to become “secular”, or an essential part of men’s lives, dining, would have been too intimately linked with pagan religion.19 This difference between pagans and Christians in the attitude to animals has too often been overlooked, and subconsciously tends to affect our way of interpreting the evidence which does not explicitly locate meat within a ritual context. Actually, it may be more pertinent to consider why we are to expect that there was anything like non-ritual slaughter of animals and non-ritual meat in ancient Greece. Still, even if we accept as a basic condition that meat was linked to religion, the ancient texts and vase-paintings seem to indicate that there were distinctions in the way that meat was categorized within the sacred realm. To link all meat explicitly to sacrifice of the thysia kind does not seem to fully account for these variations, since some of the evidence is ignored. The possible categories and degrees of “sacredness” need to be further explored. A diversified sacredness scale for meat can therefore be imagined, ranging from the meat deriving from the full-scale thysia to the opposite end, presumably the meat from an animal which had died from natural causes. There are many features which may have affected the understanding of meat as more or less sacred: its origins, the kind of animal the meat came from, how and where this animal had been killed and where its meat was eaten. Previous work on attitudes to meat has been based on written and iconographical sources. In this paper, I will concentrate on what the bone evidence can contribute to our understanding of this issue. The osteological material, for long neglected within the study of Greek religion, can provide information different from that of the texts, inscriptions and images, which will make it possible to diversify various assumptions surrounding the status of meat. Though bones have been recovered and even kept since the early excavations of Greek sanctuaries from the 19th century onwards, it is not until the last decades that they have become the focus of proper study by experts.20 Field archaeological methods have also improved and 19 Any occurrences of “animal sacrifice” at Christian rituals are therefore not be seen as continuations or survivals of pagan religious practices but as later additions which rather fall back on Israelite and Jewish animal sacrifices as represented in the Bible, see Stella GEORGOUDI, “Sanctified slaughter in modern Greece: the “Kourbánia” of the Saints” in M. DETIENNE, J.-P. VERNANT (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks (Chicago/London, 1989), pp. 183-203. On the practical and conceptual distinctions, see Cristiano GROTTANELLI, “Tuer des animaux pour la fête de Saint Félix” in S. GEORGOUDI et al. (eds.), La cuisine et l’autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne (Paris, 2005), pp. 387-407. 20 See, for example, Robin HÄGG, “Osteology and Greek sacrificial practice” in R. HÄGG (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the archaeological evidence (Stockholm, 1998), pp. 49-56; David S. REESE, “Faunal remains from Greek sanctuaires” in R. HÄGG, B. ALROTH (eds.), 256 Gunnel Ekroth dry sieving and water flotation now result in an increasingly sophisticated knowledge of the bones. The osteological material is a rich category of evidence which is constantly increasing. Three particular issues of relevance for the understanding of the Greek attitudes to meat will be addressed here: the species found in Greek sanctuaries, which parts of these animals are present and how these bones have been treated.21 Species The texts, inscriptions and images make clear that the Greeks sacrificed and ate cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. The question is in what proportions and on what occasions. In his study of animal sacrifice as represented on vase-paintings and votive reliefs Folkert Van Straten has clearly shown that the preferences of the animal victims for sacrifice depend on the category of evidence we consider.22 On the vases, which show general scenes of sacrifices not being connected to a particular divinity, occasion or group of worshippers, the preferred animals are the expensive cattle. The votive reliefs, on the other hand, which reflect private undertakings commemorating actual sacrificial occasions, mainly show pigs and especially piglets, animals which were both abundant and not very costly. The epigraphical evidence in the form of sacrificial calendars offers us a third option, representing public sacrifice usually on a local level, and here sheep are the predominant victims. Cattle, sheep, goats and pigs make up the bulk of all bones recovered in Greek sanctuaries, a far from surprising picture which corresponds well with the written and iconographical evidence as to which animals could be sacrificed and therefore eaten.23 However, the detailed study and publication of the bone material from sanctuary sites present a greater diversity of species than do the texts, inscriptions and images. Present in the osteological evidence are also dogs, horses, donkeys, mules, cats, chicken, geese, pigeons, red deer, fallow deer, roe deer, wild boars, foxes, bears, wolves, weasels, turtles, snakes, crocodiles, gazelles, camels, vultures and lions. Bones from species other than cattle, sheep, goats and Greek sacrificial ritual, Olympian and chthonian (Stockholm, 2005), pp. 121-123; Eleni KOTJABOPOULOU et al., Zooarchaeology in Greece. Recent advances (Athens/London, 2003); Michael MACKINNON, “Osteological research in Classical archaeology”, American journal of archaeology, vol. 111 (2007), pp. 473-504, esp. pp. 490-491. 21 The osteological evidence discussed in this article will be given a fuller treatment elsewhere. 22 Folkert VAN STRATEN, Hierà kalá..., pp. 170-181. 23 Ibid., pp. 170-186. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 257 pigs only represent a small part of the osteological material recovered in any sanctuary, rarely more than 10 %. Still, these bones are present and they are definitely worthy of a closer study than simply being dismissed as lacking connection to the religious activity because they derive from animals which according to modern standards cannot be eaten or which the Greeks are not considered to have sacrificed and eaten. These finds should not be explained as intrusions and rubbish, which has sometimes been the case. In order to address the relevance of these more unusual species, it should be made clear that the type of bones from each kind of animal must be taken into consideration, as well as the find contexts. Claws, foot bones and horns have to be left aside, as such bones could have ended up in a sanctuary when an animal skin was dedicated. Teeth, claws and single elements of exotic or non-local animals are also to be excluded, as they may have been left there as individual bone dedications devoid of meat. The crocodile bones in the sanctuary of Hera on Samos and the phalanx of a gazelle in Messene are not to be taken as the remains of sacrificial victims, neither as the leftovers of outlandish meals, but as votives.24 The same goes for the bear teeth at the Artemision at Ephesos, which are pierced and may have belonged to a piece of jewellery.25 The analysis is therefore to be based on findings of bones from the fleshier parts of the animals and, in particular, when the bones from the species usually considered as “non-edible” have been recovered together with the cattle, sheep, goat and pig bones, that is, the remains of animals which are known to have been sacrificed and eaten. Furthermore, the bones must come from contexts which can be interpreted as either representing the bones that had been burnt on the altar or the leftovers from the meals where the meat was consumed. Isolated finds of bones are of less interest here. Three categories of animals deserve particular attention – wild fauna, dogs and equids, as these are species which have been considered as not being compatible with the notion of all meat belonging to the sacrificial sphere. The osteological reports show that occasional bones of wild fauna have in fact been found in most Greek sanctuaries, though some sites demonstrate a higher proportion of wild animals, most often red deer, roe deer and wild boar. At the sanctuary of Apollon and Artemis 24 For Samos, see Joachim BOESSNECK, Angela VON DEN DRIESCH, “Reste exotischer Tiere aus dem Heraion von Samos”, Athenische Mitteilungen, vol. 96 (1981), pp. 245-248. Joachim BOESSNECK, Angela VON DEN DRIESCH, “Weitere Reste exotischer Tiere aus dem Heraion auf Samos”, Athenische Mitteilungen, vol. 98 (1983), pp. 21-24. For Messene, see Günter NOBIS, “Tieropfer aus einem Heroen- und Demeterheiligtum des antiken Messene (SW-Peloponnes, Griechenland). Grabungen 1992 bis 1996”, Tier und Museum, vol. 5 (1997), pp. 106-107. 25 Anton BAMMER, “Sanctuaries in the Artemision of Ephesus” in R. HÄGG (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the archaeological evidence (Stockholm, 1998), p. 40 and fig. 12. 258 Gunnel Ekroth at Kalapodi the bones from wild fauna make up a little more than 6 % of the osteological evidence from the Archaic period, mainly consisting of red deer, fallow deer, roe deer and wild boar.26 The body parts are predominantly vertebrae and fore and hind legs, largely good meat-bearing parts. A bone to be mentioned is the shoulder-blade of a lion found in a mixed Geometric-Archaic layer.27 As this scapula bears traces of fire and has chop marks, it may be possible that even this lion was eaten. The sanctuaries at Messene have also yielded substantial quantities of bones from wild animals. In a pit in the centre of the cult building dedicated to the Heroes and Demeter almost a fifth of the osteological evidence of the early Archaic to late Classical periods consisted of wild animals.28 There is red deer, roe deer, wild goat and a substantial amount of wild boar, as well as smaller quantities of bear, fox, weasel and wolf. The bones are unburnt and fragmented, as are the cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, which make up the bulk of the bones. Around 5 % of the bones recovered next to the temple of Artemis Orthia at the same site came from wild species: red deer, roe deer, wild boar, fox, hare, turtle and wolf.29 The wolf bones included a shoulder-blade, a bone from the fleshier part of the animal’s body.30 At the Heraion on Samos, the fallow deer bones found, some of which are from the fore limbs, had been handled in the same manner as the bones of the domesticated species recovered from the food refuse deposits.31 Dog bones have been recovered in a number of sanctuaries, often found mixed with the bones of cattle, sheep, goat and pigs and bearing the same butchering marks as these latter species and usually unburnt. This is the situation at the sacrificial area to the north of the temple of Apollon 26 Manfred STANZEL, Die Tierreste aus dem Artemis-/Apollon-Heiligtum bei Kalapodi in Böotien/Griechenland (München, 1991), pp. 87-119 and 169, Table 48. The total mammal sample from the Archaic period consisted of 2228 fragments,. 27 Ibid., p. 114. 28 Günter NOBIS, “Tieropfer aus einem Heroen- und Demeterheiligtum…”, pp. 101-102 and Table 1, 119 fragments of 550 identified. In the Hellenistic period, 4542 bones were identified, 480 of which (10,57 %) came from wild fauna. 29 Günter NOBIS, “Die Tierreste aus dem antiken Messene – Grabung 1990/91” in M. KOKABI, J. WAHL (eds.), Beiträge zur Archäozoologie und Prähistorischen Anthropologie. 8. Arbeitstreffen der Osteologen (Stuttgart, 1994), pp. 298-299, Tables 2 and 3. In the two investigated areas, 14 bones of 257 and 49 bones of 803, respectively, came from wild animals, the rest being domesticated species. 30 Ibid., p. 302. 31 Joachim BOESSNECK, Angela VON DEN DRIESCH, Knochenabfall von Opfermahlen und Weihgaben aus dem Heraion von Samos (7. Jh. v. Chr.) (München, 1988), p. 37. Of the bones from the Artemision at Ephesos, ca 1 % came from wild species found mixed with the domesticated animals and presumably eaten, see Anton BAMMER, Friedrich BREIN, Petra WOLFF, “Das Tieropfer am Artemisaltar von Ephesos” in S. SAHIN, E. SCHWERTHEIM, J. WAGNER (eds.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens, vol. 1, Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner (Leiden, 1978), pp. 108-110 and 148-151. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 259 Daphnephoros at Eretria, where the food debris consisted primarily of unburnt bones from sheep, goat and pigs, but also included the remains of two dogs with marks from knives, demonstrating that they had been skinned and gutted.32 The variation of anatomical elements, the fragmentation of the bones and the traces of butchering into smaller portions are further signs that these dog bones were not present in this deposit by accident but that they were from animals that had been slaughtered and consumed just as the other animals. Also the food debris from the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia contained the remains of one dog, some of which showed signs of being butchered, mixed with the bones of cattle, sheep, goat and pigs.33 A more direct example of dogs being used as food comes from the kitchen in the sanctuary of Poseidon and Amphitrite on Tenos, where the bones consisted of cattle, pigs, sheep and goat and a small amount of dog.34 As for equids, finally, a part of the skull of a donkey was found among the bones in the sanctuary kitchen on Tenos, presumably a sign of its meat having been consumed.35 At the sanctuary of Herakles on Thasos, unburnt horse bones with butchering marks were recovered, including ribs apparently cut up into portions.36 Chop marks were also clearly visible on 32 Jacqueline STUDER, Isabelle CHENAL-VELARDE, “La part des dieux et celle des hommes : offrandes d’animaux et restes culinaires dans l’Aire sacrificielle nord” in S. HUBER, Eretria XIV. L’Aire sacrificielle au nord de Sanctuaire d’Apollon Daphnéphoros (Basel, 2003), p. 180. Of the 119 identified bones, 9 % came from dog. 33 Elizabeth R. GEBHARD, David S. REESE, “Sacrifices for Poseidon and Melikertes-Palaimon at Isthmia” in R. HÄGG, B. ALROTH (eds.), Greek sacrificial ritual, Olympian and chthonian (Stockholm, 2005), p. 140. The deposit contained at least 25 individuals of cattle, 32 of sheep/goat, and five pigs. 34 Martine LEGUILLOUX, “Sacrifice et repas publics dans le sanctuaire de Poséidon à Ténos: les analyses archéozoologiques”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, vol. 123 (1999), p. 451 and Table 7. It should be pointed out that this sample is very small, a total of 29 fragments, two of which are from dog. A large quantity of dog bones, in total from more than 33 individuals, were recovered as secondary deposited in a series of wells near the sanctuary of Apollon at Didyma, see Klaus TUCHELT, “Tieropfer in Didyma − ein Nachtrag”, Archäologischer Anzeiger (1992), p. 75; Joachim BOESSNECK, Johann SCHÄFFER, “Tierknochenfunde aus Didyma II”, Archäologischer Anzeiger (1986), pp. 285-294; Joachim BOESSNECK, Angela VON DEN DRIESCH, “Tierknochenfunde aus Didyma”, Archäologischer Anzeiger (1983), pp. 641-646. The bones consist to a large extent of parts of the upper legs and the meat seems to have been removed. Due to the variation in appearance and size of these animals the excavator has proposed that the dogs had been chosen on purpose rather than simply being randomly dumped. The feet and the spine are missing and this fact can be taken to indicate that these dogs were eaten just as the other animals found in the Didyma deposits. See also James ROY, “The consumption of dog-meat in Classical Greece” in Ch. MEE, J. RENARD (eds.), Cooking up the past. Food and culinary practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford, 2007), pp. 344-347. 35 Martine LEGUILLOUX, “Sacrifice et repas publics…”, pp. 427, Table 2 and 451, Table 7. A total of 29 bones were identified. 36 Armelle GARDEISEN, “Sacrifices d’animaux à l’Hérakleion de Thasos”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, vol. 120 (1996), p. 819, Lot 6. Three of 103 bones in this deposit came from equids, see ibid, p. 804, Table 1. 260 Gunnel Ekroth the horse bones from the Artemision at Ephesos and indicate that these animals had been divided in order to be consumed.37 Among the bones from the pit in the centre of the sanctuary of the Heroes and Demeter at Messene were found a small quantity of remains of horse and donkey.38 Though bones from horses never occur in large quantities in Greek cultic contexts, these examples demonstrate that the presence of equids strongly indicate that their meat was eaten. Sacrificial victims and other animals This sample of Greek sanctuaries shows that occasional dogs, horses, donkeys, red deer, fallow deer, roe deer, wild boars and other nondomesticated animals complemented the cows, sheep, goat and pigs which constituted the main sources of meat. Both the find contexts and the presence of chop and knife marks indicate that these animals were eaten in the sanctuaries, a fact which should not be surprising as settlement debris shows that both wild fauna, horses and dogs were consumed in non-ritual contexts.39 The next question to address is whether the fact that the meat of an animal was consumed in a sanctuary also means that it had been sacrificed there. Are dogs, horses and game to be considered as sacrificial victims? A closer look at the osteological remains allows us to distinguish different kinds of treatment of the animals present in a sanctuary and, presumably, of their meat. The bones can often be shown to correspond to two different kinds of activities, on the one hand, the burning of the god’s portion on the altar, and, on the other, the consumption of the meat following the actual sacrifice.40 The criteria to use when distinguishing these two categories of bones are which bones are included, the degree 37 Anton BAMMER, Friedrich BREIN, Petra WOLFF, “Das Tieropfer am Artemisaltar…”, pp. 108-110. 20 bones (1,2 %) came from equids. 38 Günter NOBIS, “Tieropfer aus einem Heroen- und Demeterheiligtum…”, p. 102, Table 3 and p. 105: 101 equid fragments of 5092 identified. The bones of equids from Kalapodi can also be taken to represent dinner debris, see Manfred STANZEL, Die Tierreste…, p. 154. 39 See Philippe COLUMEAU, “Sacrifice et viande dans les sanctuaires grecs et chypriotes (VIIe s./Ier s. av. J.-C.) et l’apport de l’habitat de Kassopè”, Pallas, vol. 52 (2000), pp. 154-156; Joris PETERS, Angela VON DEN DRIESCH, “Siedlungsabfall versus Opferreste: Essgewohnheiten im archaischen Milet”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen, vol. 42 (1992), p. 117-119, Table 1; see Lynn M. SNYDER, Walter E. KLIPPEL, “From Lerna to Kastro: further thoughts on dogs as food in ancient Greece; perceptions, prejudices and reinvestigations” in E. KOTJABOPOULOU et al., Zooarchaeology in Greece. Recent advances (Athens/London, 2003), pp. 221-231. 40 The distinctions between these two kinds of deposits are well illustrated in Elizabeth R. GEBHARD, David S. REESE, “Sacrifices for Poseidon…”, pp. 140-147. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 261 and type of fragmentation, the presence of cut or chop marks, and most importantly, to what degree the bones show traces of burning. The bones deriving from the activity at the altar usually consist of femora, patellae, caudal vertebrae or sacrum bones, or a mixture of these categories. Furthermore, since the purpose of burning these parts was to feast the noses of the gods with smoke, these bones are heavily burnt, carbonized and calcined and shattered into small splinters. The leftovers of meals on the other hand, are primarily made up of bones from the meatbearing parts of the body and the parts burnt for the gods on the altar are present in small quantities or not at all. The lower parts of the legs as well as the back of the skull with the horns are usually missing: these parts have very little meat and are likely to have been removed at the flaying of the animal or at the initial stages of butchering and therefore discarded elsewhere. Chop and knife marks are often visible in the dining refuse, corresponding to a division into smaller portions or to the removal of the meat. There is often a substantial degree of fragmentation and breakage of the bones to access the marrow. Finally, as the meat would have protected the bones at the cooking process, these bones bear few traces of having come in contact with the fire.41 If we look at the bones from these two categories of osteological deposits, a distinction can be noted between altar deposits and consumption debris as to species: dogs, equids and wild animals are rarely recovered among the bones corresponding to the burning of the god’s portion. Another interesting observation is the fact that pig bones are infrequently found in the sacrificial deposits from the altars, though these animals are encountered in the leftovers from the meals. Some examples will illustrate this situation. In the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia, cattle, sheep and goats were sacrificed and burnt at the Long Altar in front of the temple. The meat from these sacrifices was eaten to the south-west of the temple and the refuse dumped in the Large Circular Pit. The bones found here are of the same species as those recovered at the altar, but there were the remains of at least five pigs and a dog as well.42 Presumably the cows, sheep and goats sacrificed at the altar were eaten at the dining area to the south-west but here were also 41 The osteological deposits recovered do not always demonstrate all of these criteria and bones from the altar activity and from the meals may have been mixed at a later stage when deposited, or the consumption debris may have been thrown into the fire after the meat had been eaten, see the bones (pig, piglet and fish) from the three dining rooms in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth, which were both burnt and unburnt, see Nancy BOOKIDIS et al., “Dining in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth”, Hesperia, vol. 68 (1999), pp. 42-44 and 50-51. 42 Elizabeth R. GEBHARD, David S. REESE, “Sacrifices for Poseidon…”, pp. 130, 140 and 149-153, Tables 1 and 2. The dining refuse also yielded as many as 25 cattle and 32 sheep/goat. 262 Gunnel Ekroth consumed animals that have left no traces at the altar. At the Herakleion on Thasos and the Artemision at Ephesos the deposits interpreted as deriving from the altars contained sheep, goat and cattle, while pig bones were only found in the dinner debris accumulated elsewhere together with bones of cattle, sheep and goat.43 At Kommos on Crete, in Temple C, there are no pigs on the exterior altar (C) dating to the Classical and Hellenistic periods, while on the hearths inside the same building, which seems to have served as a dining room, a hestiatorion, there is a gradual increase in pigs bones during the same period.44 Also at Eretria there may have been a similar situation: sheep, goat, pig and dog bones occur in the cooking hearths in front of the temple of Apollon while only sheep and goat make up the burnt altar material in the sacrificial area to the north.45 The osteological sample discussed here is small but we can conclude that the standard ritual practice seems to have been to burn thigh bones and tails from sheep, goats and cattle for the gods on the altar while the rest of the animals to be eaten were processed elsewhere in the sanctuaries.46 But the bone evidence also produces unexpected results, as the case of the sanctuary of Apollon and Artemis at Kalapodi. This osteological assemblage constitutes leftovers from meat eaten in the sanctuary, since sacra and caudal vertebrae are almost absent from the deposit, presumably since these parts had been removed and burnt on the altar.47 Exceptional here is the fact that the sacra and tails are 43 Armelle GARDEISEN, “Sacrifices d’animaux…”, pp. 804-814 and 817-818: 17,2 % of Lot 6 are pig bones; Anton BAMMER, Friedrich BREIN, Petra WOLFF, “Das Tieropfer am Artemisaltar…”, pp. 107-115 and Plan 3: 6,3 % of the bones come from pigs. 44 Joseph W. SHAW, “Ritual and development in the Greek sanctuary” in J.W. SHAW, M. SHAW (eds.), Kommos IV. The Greek sanctuary, Part 1 (Princeton/Oxford, 2000), p. 684-685. Within Temple C, 37,8 % of the individuals identified (45 in total) are pigs, see D.S. REESE, M.J. ROSE, D. RUSCILLO, “The Iron Age fauna”, in J.W. SHAW, M. SHAW (eds.), Kommos IV. The Greek sanctuary, Part 1 (Princeton/Oxford, 2000), p. 450, Table 6.3. 45 Isabelle CHENAL-VELARDE, “Des festins à l’entrée du temple? Sacrifices et consommation des animaux à l’époque géométrique dans le sanctuaire d’Apollon à Erétrie, Grèce”, Archaeofauna, vol. 10 (2001), pp. 25-35, esp. p. 29, Table 1: 10 % of the bones derive from pigs and 5 % from dogs (a total of 100 identified fragments). The link between the sacrificial activity to the north and the cooking of the hearths in front of the temple has been suggested by CHENAL-VELARDE, p. 34. 46 The scarcity of pig bones in the altar deposits is interesting considering the fact that pigs are stipulated in sacred laws as sacrificial victims and are often shown on votive reliefs. This issue will discussed in Gunnel EKROTH, “Thighs or tails? The osteological evidence as a source for Greek ritual norms” XIe colloque du CIERGA. La norme en matière religieuse dans la Grèce antique, forthcoming. 47 Rainer C.S. FELSCH, “Opferhandlungen des Alltagslebens im Heiligtum der Artemis Elaphebolos von Hyampolis in den Phasen SH III C – Spätgeometrisch” in R. LAFFINEUR, R. HÄGG (eds.), Potnia. Deities and religion in the Aegean Bronze Age (Liège/Austin, 2001), pp. 196-197; Manfred STANZEL, Die Tierreste…, pp. 162. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 263 missing also from the wild species. Though the actual altar debris has not been found, the bones suggest that at Kalapodi red deer, fallow deer, roe deer and wild boars were sacrificed to the gods and had a portion of their bones burnt for the gods.48 Game, dogs, horses and animals dead from natural causes If not sacrificed at the altar, cattle, sheep, goats and pigs could presumably be slaughtered in the sanctuary just for alimentary purposes. The contexts of bones of the wild animals, dogs and equids indicate that these species were rarely or never sacrificed, and that they only contributed a lesser quantity of the meat eaten in sanctuaries. At some sites, the material can be taken to represent only a few animals or even parts of them. These animals may never have entered the sanctuary alive to be slaughtered there. Instead whole carcasses or sections, such heads, legs and backs, could have been taken to the sanctuary already butchered to supplement the live victims. This meat may have been brought by the individuals who had killed the animals themselves, or it could have been bought in the market where the animals had been slaughtered by a professional butcher. The reasons for bringing meat from wild animals, dogs and horses could simply have been a desire or need to increase the amount of meat for consumption, but the meat from these species may occasionally have fulfilled a particular function within the ritual reflecting local practices or traits of the divine recipient. Most of the wild animals represented among the bones must presumably have been game caught at hunts, though it has been suggested that fallow deer may have been kept and bred in deer parks in order to easily supply victims.49 There is no evidence for Greek hunters handling their prey as the sacrificial victims in a sanctuary, but we should not totally rule out some kind of ritual treatment of the animal and its meat, though different from that taking place at a thysia. In fact, few activities are so ritualized as hunting, even today, and in many ways actually comparable to sacrifice.50 48 At the altar of Asklepios at Messene, 10 % of the animal bones are made up of nondomesticated species, mainly red deer and wild boars, though which parts are not specified, see Günter NOBIS, “Die Tierreste aus dem antiken Messene…”, pp. 298, Table 2 and 302-303. 49 Günter NOBIS, “Tierreste aus Tamassos auf Zypern”, Acta praehistorica et archaeologica, vol. 7/8 (1976-77), p. 292; Joachim BOESSNECK, Angela VON DEN DRIESCH, Knochenabfall von Opfermahlen…, p. 41; Yannis HAMILAKIS, “The sacred geography of hunting: wild animals, social power and gender in early farming societies” in E. KOTJABOPOULOU et al. (eds.), Zooarchaeology in Greece. Recent advances (Athens/London, 2003), p. 244. 50 See, for example, Valerio VALERI, “Wild victims: hunting as sacrifice and sacrifice as hunting in Huaulu”, History of religions, vol. 34 (1994), pp. 111-131; Jean-Louis DURAND, Alain 264 Gunnel Ekroth At Kalapodi the absence of sacrum bones and tails of the red deer, fallow deer, roe deer and wild boars may indicate that these species could have been sacrificed just as the domesticated animals, and this particular handling of the wild animals may conceivably be linked to Artemis being one of the divinities worshipped at the site.51 A famous passage in Xenophon’s Anabasis (5.3.37) describes how he established a sanctuary to Artemis at Skillous. At the annual festival, there was a hunt where wild boars, roe and deer were killed, partly on the grounds belonging to the sanctuary, and presumably these animals would have supplemented the other victims sacrificed and eaten at the festival of the goddess. Occasionally sacred laws stipulate wild victims, even specifying their weight, perhaps an indication that these animals were already dead and butchered when brought to the sanctuary.52 Some of the Archaic bronze plaques from the sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite at Kato Syme Viannou on Crete show young males carrying legs and heads of ibexes presumably to be offered as sacrifices.53 Good, meaty parts, such as legs or backs of wild animals killed in hunts may have been offered to the gods and displayed on a sacred table as a part of a trapezomata ritual or perhaps even given as honorary portions to priests or prominent officials.54 SCHNAPP, “Sacrificial slaughter and initiatory hunt” in C. BÉRARD et al., A city of images: iconography and society in ancient Greece (Princeton, 1989), pp. 59-70; Yannis HAMILAKIS, “The sacred geography of hunting…”, pp. 239-247. See Walter BURKERT, Homo necans…, pp. 12-18, who explains the handling of the thigh bones at a thysia sacrifice as inherited from Palaeolithic hunting rituals. 51 For osteological evidence of game in Artemis sanctuaries, see also Anton BAMMER, “Sanctuaries in the Artemision…”, p. 38, Table 1; Günter NOBIS, “Die Tierreste aus dem antiken Messene…”, pp. 298-299 and 302-303. A 5th-century relief from Aegina shows a family at an altar offering a goose and leading a deer, presumably a sacrificial victim, to a torch-bearing goddess identified as Artemis or Hekate, see Annamaria COMELLA, I rilievi votivi greci di periodo arcaico e classico (Bari, 2002), 79, fig. 72. 52 Eran LUPU, Greek sacred law. A collection of new documents (Leiden, 2005), no. 5, lines 37-38 and commentary p. 188: provision of wild boar weighing 20 minae at the sacrifice to Herakles (Attika, early 2nd century AD). The difficulties lie in knowing whether kapros is a wild or domesticated boar. See Pausanias 8.38.8, describing a boar sacrificed to Apollon Epikourios at the agora of Megalopolis and once slaughtered taken to the sanctuary of Apollon Parrhasios where the thighs were cut out and burned and the meat eaten, i.e. a case of an already dead victim brought to a sanctuary for further rituals. See also Franciszek SOKOLOWSKI, Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplément (Paris, 1962), no. 85, lines 29-30, sacrifice of a (wild?) boar, a dog and a kid to Enyalios at Lindos, Rhodes, late 5th century BC; Plutarchos, Agesilaos 6, sacrifice of female deer to Artemis; Paul STENGEL, Opferbräuche der Griechen (Leipzig/Berlin, 1910), pp. 197-201. 53 Angeliki LEMBESSI, To hiero tou Herme kai tes Aphrodites ste Syme Viannou, Vol. 1 (Athens, 1985), p. 230, A37, A47, A50, A24 and A9 (legs) and A 29 (head), pl. 48-50. For the bone evidence, see Günter NOBIS, “Die Haus- und Wildtiere aus dem Bergheiligtum Kato Syme/ SO-Kreta – Grabungen 1972 bis 1984”, Tier und Museum, vol. 1 (1988), pp. 42-47. 54 For the deposition of raw meat on the sacred table of the god, see David GILL, “Trapezomata: a neglected aspect of Greek sacrifice”, Harvard Theological Review, vol. 67 (1974), pp. 117-137. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 265 There is less evidence for the ritual killing of dogs and horses and the extant sources mention rituals at which the meat would not have been eaten. Literary texts occasionally speak of sacrifices of dogs to divinities such as Hekate or Enyalios or at purifications, the animals being completely burnt or discarded at the end of the sacrificial action.55 Any particular religious reason behind the choice of these animals is not obvious, though the dogs found in the early levels at the Artemision at Ephesos have been suggested as reflecting a Lydian ethnic presence at the site.56 Just as in the case of the dogs, the written sources simply mention sacrifices of horses performed in a manner resulting in no meat being left to consume.57 When dogs, horses and donkeys were eaten in sanctuaries a wish to have more food available may have lain behind their inclusion and perhaps also economic concerns contributed, as these animals must have been cheap. The modest status of this meat is indicated by the ancient texts which often mention dogs and horses as marginal food spoken of in a derogatory manner or recommended to be eaten for medical purposes by those who were sick and weak.58 Though these animals may have been killed in the sanctuary, it seems more likely that they were slaughtered in the domestic context, conceivably as they had become too old to be useful anymore.59 Meat of this kind could perhaps have been bought as well, as a market for donkey meat is actually mentioned by a late source.60 55 Theophrastos, Characters 16.13; Peter DANNER, “Kynophagie. Der Verzehr von Hundefleisch in Vorgeschichte und Antike”, Laverna, vol. 14 (2003), p. 78 ; Nicholaos J. ZAGANIARIS, “Sacrifices de chiens dans l’antiquité classique”, Platon, vol. 27 (1975), pp. 323-328. There is one possible vase painting showing a sacrifice of a dog, presumably to Hekate, an Attic red-figure lekythos, Athens NM 1695, ca 440-430 BC; Folkert VAN STRATEN, “Did the Greeks kneel before their gods?”, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving, vol. 49 (1974), p. 179, fig. 30. 56 Gerhard FORSTENPOINTNER et al., “Tierreste aus früheisenzeitlichen Schichten des Artemisions von Ephesos” in B. BRANDT et al. (eds.), Synergia. Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, Band I (Wien, 2005), pp. 90-91. 57 For the written evidence, see Stella GEORGOUDI, “Sacrifice et mise à mort : aperçus sur le statut du cheval dans les pratiques rituelles grecques” in A. GARDEISEN (ed.), Les équidés dans le monde méditerranéen antique (Lattes, 2005), pp. 137-142). Sacrifice and consumption of horses are commonly found in Gallic contexts, see Patrice MÉNIEL, Les Gaulois et les animaux (Paris, 2001). 58 James ROY, “The consumption of dog-meat…”, pp. 342-343 and 347-348; Andrew DALBY, Siren feasts (London/New York, 1996), pp. 60-61; Andrew DALBY, Food in the ancient world from A to Z (London/New York, 2003), p. 120, sv. dog, and p. 180, sv. horse. On sausages of dog meat, see Frank FROST, “Sausage and meat preservation in antiquity”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine studies, vol. 40 (1999), p. 247. 59 For the presence of elderly animals in the consumption debris, see Armelle GARDEISEN, “Sacrifices d’animaux…”, p. 819, a sow more than ten years old. Of the animals eaten in the sanctuary of Poseidon and Amphitrite on Tenos, 15 of the 24 cattle were between five and ten years old and one of the five sheep/goat more than five years, see Martine LEGUILLOUX, “Sacrifice et repas publics…”, pp. 434-435. 60 Pollux 9.48; see also Guy BERTHIAUME, Les rôles du mágeiros…, pp. 92-93. 266 Gunnel Ekroth Some of this additional meat may even have come from animals which had died from natural causes, labelled kenebreia, thneseidia or nekrimaia in the ancient texts. There is evidence for the sale and consumption of such meat, but understandably this was not considered as the most attractive kind of food.61 If kenebreia ever was brought to the sanctuaries is not known, though it possible that it was to be avoided due to religious reasons as it may have spread impurity. A 3rd century BC sacred law from Kos stipulates that a priestess of Demeter was not to come in contact with any thnasidia, meat of animals which had died from natural causes, just as she was to keep away from human corpses. Perhaps this is to be taken to indicate that the priestess could encounter such meat in the sanctuary, though this may of course happen elsewhere as well.62 A fragmentary 5th century inscription from Delphi, from the Agora at the entrance of the sanctuary, seems to prohibit the sale of dead animals of this kind.63 Elimination of pollution may be the cause also here but perhaps the sellers of kenebreia tried to conduct their business at a sanctuary where meat from sacrifices was sold in an attempt to increase the status of what they were selling or simply to disguise its origin by passing it off among the vendors of meat of better quality. Boiled meat – sacred meat The spectrum of meat available and consumed in the sanctuaries was clearly varied as to species and origin as well as to procedure and reason for slaughter but these distinctions were perhaps less important than one would think. It is interesting to note that in the consumption deposits dogs, equids and game are found together with the cattle, sheep, goat and pigs, that is, the animals traditionally considered as suitable for sacrifice are mixed with the species that have been considered as unfit for thysia sacrifice. The bones demonstrate the same treatment and the same chop and knife marks. Apparently, no distinction was made between the different species when the meat was cooked to be eaten, even though not all animals had died at the altar and had had parts of them burnt there. This suggests that all of the meat, once eaten in the sanctuary, had the same status or had acquired the same status, no matter if it came from an animal which had been sacrificed at the altar or killed elsewhere. On the 61 Ibid., pp. 81-92 for a discussion of the evidence. 62 Franciszek SOKOLOWSKI, Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris, 1969), no. 154 A, line 26. 63 Franciszek SOKOLOWSKI, Lois sacrées..., Supplément, no. 37, lines 2-3; Guy BERTHIAUME, Les rôles du mágeiros…, p. 88. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 267 basis of the bones from meals consumed in a sanctuary I would propose that all of the meat eaten at these meals must have been considered as sacred meat, no matter which species the meat came from or where and how the animals had been killed. The actual cooking method is of essential importance for the understanding of this process. The deposits identified as consumption debris due to criteria such as a predominance of meat-bearing parts, chop and knife marks, and a high degree of fragmentation also demonstrate another important feature: there is often a very low quantity of burnt bones in these deposits, contrary to the altar deposits which are carbonized and calcined. The material from the sanctuary of the Heroes and Demeter at Messene is not burnt at all and only occasional bones from the consumption deposits from the Heraion on Samos, the Herakleion on Thasos, the sanctuary of Poseidon and Amphitrite on Tenos, the sacrificial area at Eretria and the Large Circular Pit at Isthmia, to mention a few examples, show traces of fire.64 The state of these bones suggests that they constitute the leftovers from meals where the meat had been boiled.65 Although meat can be roasted without scorching the bones, there are other arguments for boiling having been the most frequent cooking method at large scale sacrifices in sanctuaries. Boiling was convenient for several reasons, especially when preparing food for a large number of people: the fat would stay in the rich broth, the marrow was cooked and easily accessible and the meat would become tender.66 More importantly, apart from these practical considerations, boiling also made it possible to integrate the different 64 Günter NOBIS, “Tieropfer aus einem Heroen- und Demeterheiligtum…”, p. 100; Joachim BOESSNECK, Angela VON DEN DRIESCH, Knochenabfall von Opfermahlen…, p. 7; Armelle GARDEISEN, “Sacrifices d’animaux…”, pp. 811 and 817; Martine LEGUILLOUX, “Sacrifice et repas publics…”, pp. 426 and 444; Jaqueline STUDER, Isabelle CHENAL-VELARDE, “La part des dieux…”, pp. 177, Table 2 and 181.; Elizabeth R. GEBHARD, David S. REESE, “Sacrifices for Poseidon…”, pp. 140 and 153, Table 2B. See also Miletos, Joris PETERS, Angela VON DEN DRIESCH, “Siedlungsabfall versus Opferreste…”, pp. 124-125; Deborah RUSCILLO, “Faunal remains from the Acropolis site, Mytilene”, Echos du monde classique, vol. 37 (1993), p. 209. 65 For this cooking method, see also Gunnel EKROTH, “Meat, man and god…”, and ”Burnt, cooked or raw? Divine and human culinary desires at Greek animal sacrifice” in E. STAVRIANOPOULOU, A. MICHAELS, C. AMBOS (eds.), Transformations in Sacrificial Practices. From Antiquity to the Modern Times. Proceedings of an International Colloquium, 12-14 July 2006, Heidelberg, (2008), forthcoming. 66 The ancient sources point specifically to boiling as a means for making the meat tender, see Philochoros, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. JACOBY (Berlin, 1954), no. 328, F 173; Euripides, Cyclops, 243-246. Studies of meat texture have shown that around 2/3 of the meat of cattle, sheep, goat or pig needs to be cooked in a high temperature and for a long period of time, preferably being boiled, see Bernard L. DUMONT, “Relations entre la découpe bouchère et la structure de la musculature” in Le découpage et le partage du corps à travers le temps et l’espace. Anthropozoologica. Premier numéro spécial (Paris, 1987), pp. 15-16. 268 Gunnel Ekroth kinds of meat present at the sanctuary. In the cauldron would be placed the meat from the animals sacrificed at the altar in the thysia manner as well as the meat from the animals killed elsewhere, either inside the sanctuary or outside it, but also the meat brought to the sanctuary already butchered. Once boiled, no-one could distinguish between the different kinds of meat as to origin, species and where and how the killing had taken place.67 At this stage any distinctions between the sacrificial ox and the old dog were of little importance as all the meat boiled in the cauldron had now become sacred meat ready to be distributed and eaten. The hierarchy of meat The osteological evidence allows us to diversify our view of meat and animal sacrifice. First of all, it is evident that there were more animal species present in Greek sanctuaries than the texts, inscriptions and depictions reveal. The bone material suggests that animals traditionally considered as being outside the sacrificial sphere could be eaten in sanctuaries and may occasionally even have had a religious function to fulfil. If the meat of dogs, horses, donkeys and wild animals could be consumed as sacred meat, a wider spectrum of species related to religion has to be reckoned with, and the usefulness of the concept of animals “not to be sacrificed” needs to be questioned. Second, the bone assemblages representing the god’s portion burnt on the altar and the leftovers of meals present certain differences as to which animals are included in each kind of deposit. The altar debris consists mainly of cattle, sheep and goats, while in the consumption debris the same species are found but also pigs, as well as smaller quantities of dogs, horses, donkeys and wild animals. The osteological material can be taken to demonstrate that all bones recovered in a sanctuary cannot automatically be taken to represent sacrificial victims in the traditional sense and that some of the animals eaten may have been slaughtered in the sanctuary without having parts cut out and burnt on the altar. The bone evidence here constitutes an argument for different kinds of rituals at the killing of an animal; the elaborate, full-scale thysia, as well as more scaled-down rituals, which were both simpler and quicker and which may have been used at the additional killings in the sanctuary as well as in the domestic context or the market. To these animals slaughtered in the sanctuaries could be added meat brought there from animals killed 67 For boiling as a means of disguising human meat in a stew of animal meat, see Gunnel EKROTH, ”Burnt, cooked or raw?...”. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 269 at home, at hunts or in the market consisting of game, dogs, horses and perhaps even kenebreia, whole or in parts. Third, the bone material can also be taken as an indication that the meat eaten within the sanctuaries was usually boiled. If this was the case, it is an important piece of information, since it allows us to understand the mentality behind the treatment of the meat. The boiling would efficiently eliminate any differences between the different kinds of meat, as to species, origin and quality. The meat from dogs, horses, donkeys and wild animals would be on the same level as that of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, once cooked in the communal casserole. Sacrificial victims from the altars would be mixed with the meat from pigs slaughtered elsewhere and from sheep, dogs and horses too old to be of further use. Boiled and ready to be served in equal portions, it would all comprise sacred meat. The sacrificial victim has clearly dominated our understanding of Greek attitudes to meat. Indisputably this was the most important kind of meat but it should not lead us to believe that all animals eaten were necessarily sacrificial victims. We should rather be looking for the degree of sacredness imbued in different kinds of meat and situations where meat was handled in order to distinguish a hierarchy of meat that depended on the species, where the animals were killed and how, but also where the meat was eaten. In this hierarchy of meat, I would suggest that we should separate “sacrificial” meat from “sacred” meat, that is, the actual sacrificial victims from the animals which were killed to be eaten without having specific parts burnt on the altar. The degree of sacredness inherent in the meat varied depending on the purpose for the killing of the animal – to present the gods with an offering to thank them or ask for help, or to provide meat for the dinner table. A fragment of Aristophanes has a person exclaim: “I don’t eat kenebreion. Invite me when you are sacrificing something”.68 This statement seems to illustrate the two absolute opposites on this scale of sacred meat, on the one hand, the sacrificial victim killed for a particular reason, and, on the other, the carcass of an animal which had died from natural causes. Still, the fact that some kinds of meat which have usually been considered as unfit for religious use were actually eaten in Greek sanctuaries suggests that the context in which the meat was handled and eaten could change its degree of sacredness. The donkey sold in the market or the old and useless dog are not to be considered as sacred meat per se but their status could be raised to that of sacred meat when consumed in a sanctuary. 68 Guy BERTHIAUME, Les rôles du mágeiros…, pp. 89 and 126, n. 46; Aristophanes, fragment 693K. 270 Gunnel Ekroth It is mainly the thysia sacrifice which we encounter in the literary, epigraphical and iconographical sources. This is understandable, since this was the most powerful ritual action that made the communication with the divinity possible. Sacrifices taking place in the domestic context are less frequently mentioned in our extant evidence and when they occur, the information is very sparse, such as the use of the verb thyein with little information as to whether the action was an animal sacrifice or a vegetarian one consisting of cakes and libations.69 Still, if we imagine that animals could be ritually slaughtered in a less elaborate fashion, there are in fact references to this kind of practices as well. The sacrifice by Eumaios in the Odyssey constitutes one example of a different kind of ritual killing, taking place at home and focusing on other actions than a thysia would.70 Here some meat is burnt and portions of cooked meat are offered to the gods, but there is no mention of thigh bones or tails. Another text which may concern a less elaborate ritual slaughter is a passage in Herodotos, describing the way Themistokles’ dealt with the herds on Euboia to prevent the Persian army from profiting from these animals.71 The term used for the action is the verb katathyein, which here could be translated as “to slaughter” or “to sacrifice”, or actually both at the same time, presumably indicating a ritual killing of a large number of animals with the purpose of transforming them into food.72 The principal aim seems to have been to get at the meat, not to contact the gods, though some kind of recognition of the divine was certainly made.73 The ritual actions performed on occasions such as these may have consisted of libations, cutting the hair from the animal’s head, prayer and sprinkling its blood. The fact that not all animals would be killed at the altar and both game and animals often considered by modern scholars as “unfit for sacrifice” or “not possible to sacrifice” could end up in sanctuaries actually highlights the importance of the sacrificial victims. A sacrificial victim had to be of a particular kind – healthy, without blemish – but also 69 See, for example, Plato, The republic, 328 C; Sokrates arrives in the house of Polemarchos who sits on a chair with a wreath on his head since he had just finished sacrificing (tethykos) in the court. For domestic sacrifices, see also Antoine HERMARY et al., “Sacrifice…”, pp. 109-110; Guy BERTHIAUME, Les rôles du mágeiros…, pp. 32-37. 70 Homer, Odyssey 14.414-439. 71 8.19.2. 72 Jean CASABONA, Recherches sur le vocabulaire…, p. 101. 73 A comparable case is found in Appianos (Bellum civile 3.8.198) when the Roman army under Decimus Brutus sacrifices/slaughters (katathyein) the cattle and salts the meat; see the discussion by John SCHEID, “Manger avec les dieux. Partage sacrificiel et commensalité dans la Rome antique” in S. GEORGOUDI et al. (eds.), La cuisine et l’autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne (Paris, 2005), pp. 285-286. Meat in ancient Greece : sacrificial, sacred or secular ? 271 corresponding to the specific rules of the cult (species, sex, age etc.). They could be raised in specialized herds consisting only of sacrificial animals and fattened for this purpose, and there were elaborate procedures for choosing the individual victims which could even be branded so that there would be no misunderstanding at the actual sacrifice.74 The focus on the sacrificial victim in the written and iconographical sources may be due both to this meat being of better quality and therefore preferred and to the significance of these animals in the cult and their particular connection with the divinity. The importance of meat from sacrificial victims is evident from many epigraphically attested regulations of which parts were to go on the sacrificial table and which would be given to the priest.75 It was apparently of interest to regulate this particular meat. Furthermore, meat from the sacrificial victims seems to have been a highly coveted commodity, which was sold separately at the market.76 This meat was not only of guaranteed good quality as coming from recently killed and healthy animals, it was the most sacred of all meat, imbued with the divine. One explanation for our difficulties in grasping the Greek concept of the different degrees of sacredness of meat could be our modern understanding of what is to be considered as sacred or being within the ritual sphere, which of course reflects our modern notions of the sacred and the profane. For us, sacrifice means a ritual action only, separated from the “secular” actions. The Greek terms thysia and thyein meant sacrifice, but also the consumption and handling of meat in a ritual context in a way that is not encompassed in the semantic meaning of sacrifice in English, Swedish, German and French, for example.77 When we translate thyein and thysia as “sacrifice” or when we speak of “sacrifice” to describe an ancient activity, there is always a risk of narrowing down the actions and kinds of evidence that can be included here. But there is also a risk of excluding certain kinds of animals, meat and modes of killing, since they fall outside the modern idea of what constitutes a “sacrifice”. 74 For the fattening of sacrificial animals, see Stella GEORGOUDI, Des chevaux et des boeufs dans le monde grec. Réalités et représentations animalières à partir des livres XVI et XVII des Géoponiques (Paris/Athens 1990), p. 293. For choosing the sacrificial victims, see also Antoine HERMARY et al., “Sacrifice…”, pp. 95-103. 75 See Brigitte LE GUEN-POLLET, “Espace sacrificiel…”, pp. 12-23. 76 For the sale of sacrificial meat, see Eran LUPU, Greek sacred law…, pp. 71-72 and 129-130; Guy BERTHIAUME, Les rôles du mágeiros…, pp. 62-70; M. ISENBERG, “The sale of sacrificial meat”, Classical philology, vol. 70 (1975), pp. 271-273; Christopher M. MCDONOUGH, “The pricing of sacrificial meat: eidolothuton, the Ara Maxima, and useful misinformation from Servius” in C.F. KONRAD (ed.), Augusto augurio. Rerum humanarum et divinarum commentationes in honorem Jerzy Linderski (Stuttgart, 2004), pp. 69-76. 77 See Jean-Louis DURAND, “Greek animals…”, p. 89; Jean CASABONA, Recherches sur le vocabulaire…, pp. 76-85 and 333-341. 272 Gunnel Ekroth To conclude, the Greek attitudes to meat were vastly more complex than anything we encounter in our contemporary, western-European society. In order to better grasp the ancient views of meat and meat-eating we have to use and integrate various kinds of sources and here the osteological evidence clearly will have an important role to fulfil. Still, we have to be aware that although all meat may have been sacred for the ancient Greeks, every killing of an animal was not a sacrifice.