Animal Sacrifice

[Lost_Warrior]

The answer was of course was that they would sacrifice a number of them. So at least in the case of moments when a sacrifice was utilized to avert a drought, they were already faced with the necessity of reducing the numbers of their herds & flocks.

 

It is one way of interpreting the ancient

[Pantagathus]

Absolutely!! I had never thought about it that way! Thanks for the insight.

You're welcome LW, obviously I hadn't thought about it that way either until now.

 

I guess a lot of us are so disconnected with the simple realities of agri-pastoral life to factor in such simple, plausible explainations.

[sonic]

Absolutely!! I had never thought about it that way! Thanks for the insight.

You're welcome LW, obviously I hadn't thought about it that way either until now.

 

I guess a lot of us are so disconnected with the simple realities of agri-pastoral life to factor in such simple, plausible explainations.

 

 

Maybe we are, but more of us are disconnected with the realities of religion than they realise. To suggest that the Romans may have sacrificed bulls in order to have a barbecue is to miss the point entirely. Yes, they were sacrificing a living animal in order to gain a response from a particular deity, but I would believe that for the overwhelmingly vast majority the main aspect was the religious ritual involved. It is too easy in these sceptical times to read into the writings of the ancients our own scepticism and disbelief. Yet only a few hundred years ago - and still in some places in the United States of America and other countries - to doubt the existence of God was unthinkable heresy.

 

No doubt there were some arrogant individuals who did not want to believe some aspects of religious life - for example the man (sorry, working from a very bad memory here!) who wanted to set sail with his fleet and was told that the omens were bad. Hearing that the sacred chickens refused to drink, he had them thrown into the sea, saying 'they can have a good drink now' (or something like that!). His consequent disastrous loss was blamed on his impiety.

 

I used to be a teacher, and the hardest thing about teaching history was to get children to realise that the way they thought and believed was not the way that everybody has ever thought and believed. I will accept - under pressure - that there will have been sceptics, agnostics and even atheists in the days of the Roman empire. Yet they were a negligible minority that were absorbed by the believing masses.

 

As a final footnote, I dislike people who say that the Incas/Aztecs were bloodthirsty barbarians who ripped the living hearts out of their victims: don't forget that they believed that if the sacrifice wasn't performed, the sun would fail to rise. Given the option, I don't think any of them at the time would have said, 'forget the sacrifice - let's see what happens!'

 

Please people, accept that religious beliefs in the past were a lot stronger and more widely held than they are today. They didn't have 'science' telling them about thunder, or floods, or earthquakes, so how else could they explain them??

[M. Porcius Cato]

To suggest that the Romans may have sacrificed bulls in order to have a barbecue is to miss the point entirely.

And how do you know? There has to be an explanation for why the edible parts of the animal were eaten whereas the inedible parts were tossed aside. To assume unquestioningly that this practice arose from piety would be uncritical credulity.

 

No doubt there were some arrogant individuals who did not want to believe some aspects of religious life

Or just intelligent individuals who were not quaking in fear of priests. Regulus (whose name you couldn't recall) is presumably a good example of this ordinary courage in the face of extraordinary superstition.

 

I will accept - under pressure - that there will have been sceptics, agnostics and even atheists in the days of the Roman empire. Yet they were a negligible minority that were absorbed by the believing masses.

Why would you accept evidence only under pressure? Isn't the desire for accuracy sufficient inducement to recognize a tradition that included some of the best philosophers that Rome had to offer (e.g., Lucretius)? And what does it mean to be "absorbed" in this context? Far from being 'absorbed', non-believers happily used the religion of the believers to manipulate them and the political process. On this see Polybius from the middle republic or Cicero from the late republic.

 

Please people, accept that religious beliefs in the past were a lot stronger and more widely held than they are today. They didn't have 'science' telling them about thunder, or floods, or earthquakes, so how else could they explain them?

There were natural explanations for many phenomena that had previously been explained by appealing to the supernatural. In consequence, intelligent and well-educated people from Empedocles to Aristophenes to Aristotle to Euripides to Lucretius were deeply skeptical of the notion that the Olympian pantheon and sundry farm gods were necessary to explain observable events. Why assume that these intellectuals--who taught generations of students and entertained generations of audiences--had no wider influence? Moreover, the failure to explain thunder is not remedied by the sacrifice of sheep (even according to the ancients), so I hardly see the relevance of this argument.

[The Augusta]

No doubt there were some arrogant individuals who did not want to believe some aspects of religious life

Or just intelligent individuals who were not quaking in fear of priests. Regulus (whose name you couldn't recall) is presumably a good example of this ordinary courage in the face of extraordinary superstition.

 

Regulus? Surely it was Claudius Pulcher who threw the chickens into the water!

[M. Porcius Cato]

Regulus? Surely it was Claudius Pulcher who threw the chickens into the water!

 

Ooops! How embarrassing. You're right--Publius Appius Claudius Pulcher. Similar naval disaster against the same enemy, but (mea culpa) a different culprit.

[docoflove1974]

I would almost argue that there are as many super-religious folk as ever before, as well as those who have only a 'spiritual' connection with a religion (who may not follow religious dogma to the letter) and those who remain skeptical/agnostic. However, it is a difficult argument to prove; if the sociological rules dictate that one cannot openly speak about a state religion (or lack thereof), then there probably won't be much written record of dissension or alternative viewpoints.

[The Augusta]

Regulus? Surely it was Claudius Pulcher who threw the chickens into the water!

 

Ooops! How embarrassing. You're right--Publius Appius Claudius Pulcher. Similar naval disaster against the same enemy, but (mea culpa) a different culprit.

 

Phew - thanks, Cato - I thought I was going mad! But to get back to the topic, I very much take the point you were making regarding him not quaking in fear of the priests. And I should imagine there were very many people who did not truly believe in the gods, but merely paid lip service to the state religion. It makes the Romans no different to any people through history. As I think we have discussed on the Forum before, an organised state religion was merely a means to control the masses. However, I can also see Sonic's point when he says that there may well have been many who did believe - even among the elite. Where I do not agree with him is that someone such as Pulcher should be considered 'arrogant' - both in ancient times and ours - for disregarding these superstitions.

 

if the sociological rules dictate that one cannot openly speak about a state religion (or lack thereof), then there probably won't be much written record of dissension or alternative viewpoints.

 

Are you thinking of something like the Eleusinian Mysteries, here, Doc? (It springs to mind as regards the ancient world, at least)

Edited June 25, 2007 by The Augusta

[docoflove1974]

Phew - thanks, Cato - I thought I was going mad! But to get back to the topic, I very much take the point you were making regarding him not quaking in fear of the priests. And I should imagine there were very many people who did not truly believe in the gods, but merely paid lip service to the state religion. It makes the Romans no different to any people through history. As I think we have discussed on the Forum before, an organised state religion was merely a means to control the masses. However, I can also see Sonic's point when he says that there may well have been many who did believe - even among the elite. Where I do not agree with him is that someone such as Pulcher should be considered 'arrogant' - both in ancient times and ours - for disregarding these superstitions.

 

if the sociological rules dictate that one cannot openly speak about a state religion (or lack thereof), then there probably won't be much written record of dissension or alternative viewpoints.

 

Are you thinking of something like the Eleusinian Mysteries, here, Doc? (It springs to mind as regards the ancient world, at least)

 

I hadn't thought of that, Augusta, but yes, I see that following in here. In my mind I had the Marxist/Communist regimes at the forefront, but if we keep with the antiquities, the Eleusinian Mysteries would be placed there.

 

Much like you and MPC are stating, it's an arrogant position to assume that humanity practiced and professed religious beliefs any differently in any other civilization, at the very least.

[Kosmo]

The excelent point made by Pantaghatus brought another thing in my attention. That is the religious value of animal killing. In romanian traditional society the killing of pigs for Christmas was done on Ignat (22 december) and acompanied by diverse customs, rather prechristian, with obvious mystical connotations. Likewise about lamb killing before Easter.

I have no ideea if romans and greeks had similar habits but this could be the origins of animal sacrifice. First they give a religious meaning to the killing then religious meaning takes precedence but practical considerations are still important.

If instead of saying "I'm going to butcher the ox with the usual celebrations" I say "I'm going to offer an ox to Zeus and we are going to eat it" the only thing I do it's to place the accent on a different aspect of an activity that combines both religious and practical elements.

[Nephele]

There appears to be a great deal of emphasis in this thread placed on animal sacrifice being a practical means to initiate feasts and to feed the urban poor, but I think some mention should be made of the species of animals that the Romans sacrificed with no intention of eating.

 

Each year at the celebration of the Robigalia (April 25th), a dog along with a sheep was slaughtered. Ovid, in his Fasti, writes about his return from Nomentum to Rome, and how he was blocked on the road by a white-robed crowd viewing the flamen on his way to the grove of the god (or goddess) Robigo with the entrails of both the sheep and the dog. We know that the flesh of the sacrificed dog wasn't considered fit for human consumption, as Ovid refers to "the foul entrails of a filthy dog", also calling the dog "an unwonted victim" (translation by James George Frazer).

 

Then there was the annual sacrifice of the October Horse, to Mars, on the Campus Martius.

 

Side note: Now, I've read that the ancient Romans abhorred horsemeat, and I've found a quote from Tacitus which pretty much makes it clear that the ancient Romans viewed horsemeat as being "unclean and disgusting" and only to be considered consumable as a last resort. While admitting that horsemeat is viewed as a delicacy in some parts of the world (as is dogmeat, too), and suspecting that someone here (Andrew Dalby? Pertinax?) might even manage to dig up an ancient Roman recipe for horse that will rival even the yummy pig's womb recipe I've seen here... In the meantime I'll just continue in my belief that the ancient Romans didn't eat horse unless they had to.

 

So, getting back to the sacrifice of the October Horse... The sacrificial victim came from the racetrack -- the righthand horse of the winning pair in a chariot race being chosen and then speared in sacrifice. Flavia Gemina, if you're reading this, I sincerely hope that the valiant racehorse Pegasus in your Roman Mystery novel The Charioteer of Delphi was spared what (seems to me) a poor reward for victory.

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

Wasn't the Robigalia celebrated as a festival to the goddess of mildew? Seems fitting that that particular festival would entail the entrails of a filthy dog. I'm not sure what generalizations are suggested by this.

[Pantagathus]

The excelent point made by Pantaghatus brought another thing in my attention. That is the religious value of animal killing. In romanian traditional society the killing of pigs for Christmas was done on Ignat (22 december) and acompanied by diverse customs, rather prechristian, with obvious mystical connotations. Likewise about lamb killing before Easter.

I have no ideea if romans and greeks had similar habits but this could be the origins of animal sacrifice. First they give a religious meaning to the killing then religious meaning takes precedence but practical considerations are still important.

If instead of saying "I'm going to butcher the ox with the usual celebrations" I say "I'm going to offer an ox to Zeus and we are going to eat it" the only thing I do it's to place the accent on a different aspect of an activity that combines both religious and practical elements.

Thanks Kosmo,

 

This is pretty much the point I was about to make to bring the thread back around again to Cato

[The Augusta]

Some wonderful, thought-provoking posts here. Now, pardon my ignorance, experts, (I certainly do not consider myself any kind of expert concerning the ancient religions) but the thought is striking me that as animals were seen within a broad agricultural context (i.e. perhaps a gift from the gods), was the sacrifice some way for mortals to give back this gift, to be sure that the gods' favours were perpetuated? Pan has mentioned the relevance of a red dog being sacrificed in the Robigalia, and again this brings us back to the most important consideration for ancient - even prehistoric man - to ensure survival (food) through crops. And after all, we hear of bloodless sacrifices too, of oat cakes and the like - all of which could be seen as gifts of agriculture. Even Mars was an agricultural god in his early days.

 

But Nephele raises a very good point about the horse. The Greeks were also known to sacrifice horses to Poseidon - but then he was the god of horses and earthquakes as well as the sea. For the Romans, was Mars linked with horses, and thus worthy to receive the gift of the chariot race winner?

[sonic]

1)

 

I wrote: To suggest that the Romans may have sacrificed bulls in order to have a barbecue is to miss the point entirely.

 

And how do you know? There has to be an explanation for why the edible parts of the animal were eaten whereas the inedible parts were tossed aside. To assume unquestioningly that this practice arose from piety would be uncritical credulity.

 

There is a very simple explanation. The ancients were not stupid, and, once the animal had been sacrificed and the god had taken what they wanted, the remainder could be eaten. After all, why live in a world where people waste food?

 

2)

 

I wrote: No doubt there were some arrogant individuals who did not want to believe some aspects of religious life

 

Or just intelligent individuals who were not quaking in fear of priests. Regulus (whose name you couldn't recall) is presumably a good example of this ordinary courage in the face of extraordinary superstition.

 

Why are people who refuse to believe in religion intelligent? If you believe in the Gods of Rome, or the God of the monotheistic Christians, Muslims and Jews, does that make you less intelligent? I refer you here to what I had to try and teach the children at school; you can't look back and apply our mores and morals to the ancients. We will probably never know whether people actually believed in the Gods, but to assume that intelligent people didn't is simply wrong. Are you suggesting that you are intelligent and don't believe in the Roman Gods, therefore any ancient who has your beliefs is also intelligent?

 

3)

 

I wrote: I will accept - under pressure - that there will have been sceptics, agnostics and even atheists in the days of the Roman empire. Yet they were a negligible minority that were absorbed by the believing masses.

 

Why would you accept evidence only under pressure? Isn't the desire for accuracy sufficient inducement to recognize a tradition that included some of the best philosophers that Rome had to offer (e.g., Lucretius)? And what does it mean to be "absorbed" in this context? Far from being 'absorbed', non-believers happily used the religion of the believers to manipulate them and the political process. On this see Polybius from the middle republic or Cicero from the late republic.

 

But your desire for 'accuracy' is flawed by single the nature of your evidence. The fact that a minority of philosophical writers questioned both whether the Gods existed, and their nature if they did, does not alter the idea that there were many ordinary people and slaves who would believe in the Gods. Or did the lares and penates (have I remembered that correctly?) fulfil a purely decorative function? (I can now see an ancient designer saying to his customer, 'But darling, you must have a Lares - they're so in at the moment!') The only reason why we don't know about the beliefs of the 'normal' people is because they didn't write stuff down and if they did it hasn't survived. (Alright, that's two - I never said I could count!) Or is it because they weren't intelligent (like me, apparently!) and couldn't write? However, the contention that the intelligent non-believers used religion to manipulate the believers and the political process also shows that all of your evidence is gained from reading the writings of people at the top ie the minority. What about the rest?

 

4)

 

I wrote:Please people, accept that religious beliefs in the past were a lot stronger and more widely held than they are today. They didn't have 'science' telling them about thunder, or floods, or earthquakes, so how else could they explain them?

 

There were natural explanations for many phenomena that had previously been explained by appealing to the supernatural. In consequence, intelligent and well-educated people from Empedocles to Aristophenes to Aristotle to Euripides to Lucretius were deeply skeptical of the notion that the Olympian pantheon and sundry farm gods were necessary to explain observable events. Why assume that these intellectuals--who taught generations of students and entertained generations of audiences--had no wider influence? Moreover, the failure to explain thunder is not remedied by the sacrifice of sheep (even according to the ancients), so I hardly see the relevance of this argument.

 

But again we are talking of generations of 'intellectuals', who had the income to afford to attend such schools. And the question still remains of how many, underneath their scepticism, went home and prayed to the gods for help, or for specific events to occur? These people may have had a wider audience over the centuries, yet their influence over us is simply because the 'intellectual' individuals of later centuries believed that they were worth keeping, for whatever reason.

 

 

 

We do not have - and never will have - an unbiased, accurate knowledge of the depth of belief of the ancient world. To assume that that world was full of sceptics due to the reports from ancient sources is misleading. It is arguing from negative evidence ie the writers we have did not really believe, therefore the world was full of sceptics and the ritual of sacrifice was simply an excuse for a barby!

 

Ok, so my argument that the ancients needed a god to explain the unknown may have been a bit simplistic. I didn't say I was perfect, did I?

 

Everyone knows that the Greeks were almost wholly composed of men who were philosophers who studied at Athens. We have their writings. We also know that they had the ability to build the odd temple and the like. But as for the world of engineering, they didn't have a clue; otherwise, they would have written about it. Except that I remember reading somewhere that a lump of corroded metal had been found on a Greek shipwreck, and when it was x-rayed it turned out to be a ..........?

 

Don't assume that we now everything important because if it was important it was written about. The Greeks liked to talk about their Gods and many even acknowledged that they were simply a bunch of overgrown children who could not be placated by sacrificing a sheep. The sacrifice was simply one aspect of a complex ritual, the rest of which we tend to ignore.

 

Unfortunately, I've run out of time to type any more, but I think that some of the comments by Pantagathus, Nephele, Kosmo and Docoflove deserve serious consideration, since they are looking at aspects of ritual sacrifice from the level of the people doing the actual sacrifice, rather than an intellectual elite that may (notice the highlight!) have thought of themselves as above such 'demeaning' things. (Probably not right word, but time's running out!).

 

Finally, to the Doc: it's almost impossible to prove that people are not religious. Even the most sceptical can tend to revert to saying their prayers in a crisis. And as for the statement that 'it's an arrogant position to assume that humanity practiced and professed religious beliefs any differently in any other civilization, at the very least', I cannot agree. Religion is a completely different 'animal' to everyone who practices it, and depth of belief can range widely from absolute conviction to total atheism. Also, you are saying that 'things today are as they have always been'. Why can't they have been different? Has nothing changed in the last two thousand years? No, I am not arrogant, I simply try to ensure that I don't base my statements on (arrogant?) assumptions that in religion nothing much has changed since the dawn of civilisation.

 

My personal belief is that modern science has done much to undermine religion by eroding the need for belief in order to explain the world around us. In order for that belief to be sustained, I also have to believe that it is probable that belief in the ancient world was greater than it is now. If belief has not wavered, why have 'born again' Christians emerged? Surely, there would be no need for the rebirth?

 

Darn it, Time's run out. But as Arnie once said, "I'll be back......!" (If anyone's still speaking to me!!)