Animal Sacrifice

[docoflove1974]

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 ..........?

 

I think this is over-generalizing, to say the least. Not all Greeks had the same education--not across social/economic classes, and when one compares the various city-states, 'education' as a concept varied. This is true in any 'big' society, where there are various groups of people, while bound by a common language, but independent; look at just the United States, where there is a battle for 'standardized' education across the country, let alone comparing it to the education system of Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

 

And the Greeks had no clue with engineering??? You don't think there's engineering in the building of temples, the construction of cities, and the like? Just because no volumes exist (and I'm not sure of this) doesn't mean they didn't know anything about engineering. In the specific case of the ancient Greek societies, you have thousands of buildings, canals, and other construction as testament that they had quite a bit of engineering knowledge!

 

Don't assume that we now everything important because if it was important it was written about.

 

Quite untrue. First, it may have been written about, but the documents have been lost; this is very common for ancient texts, and even for modern texts. Secondly, when dealing with an oral-tradition, not everything was written down.

 

 

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?

 

I find your position very western-centric, and I cannot agree. If one takes into account various modern societies around the globe, there are always religious rituals which are followed by those who wholely believe in the religion, as well as those who do not fully believe but follow tradition in order to 'be like the others' in society, and those who do not always participate. I would argue that most people (not necessarily all) acknowledge a 'higher spiritual force' that somehow governs life. Many societies have formalized that notion of a 'higher spiritual force' into a religion, and then adding dogma. Many follow these formalized religions and the dogma and traditions that are created. But there are always those who simply acknowledge this 'higher spiritual force' and that's it, without following the formalized religion. This is human nature.

 

My point is that if you live in a society where if you 'don't believe' you are shunned, then there are less possibilities of documented proof of dissension. In order to be published and recognized, you have to toe the societal line...this is as true today as it ever has been! Furthermore, we do not possess all documents from ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, or any other ancient society, so we cannot presume evidence that we do not have. We can only analyze evidence that we do have, and acknowledge that there are other possibilities out there that haven't been found as of yet.

[Nephele]

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?

 

The horse is linked to Mars in that the horse is symbolic of war. Even the spear that was used in the sacrifice of the October Horse is a symbol of war.

 

According to the German classical philologist, Georg Wissowa, as reported in a scholarly article for Harvard Studies in Classical Philology ("October Horse," 1981) by C. Bennett Pascal (Professor of Classics at the University of Oregon), the race of the October Horse would be run at the end of the season of military campaigns, "as an expiatory sacrifice to cleanse the army of the taint of human blood and foreign contact."

 

But the sacrifice of the horse was also tied into an agricultural ritual, as the decapitated head of the horse would be garlanded with loaves of bread, representing a successful crop of grain for the year. Mars, while not an agricultural deity, nevertheless was tied into the agricultural aspect of the ritual, in that Mars was given responsibility for that successful crop by virtue of the fact that he kept the harvest safe by repelling the enemy from the fields.

 

-- Nephele

Edited June 26, 2007 by Nephele

[docoflove1974]

The horse is linked to Mars in that the horse is symbolic of war. Even the spear that was used in the sacrifice of the October Horse is a symbol of war.

 

According to the 19th century German classical philologist, Georg Wissowa, as reported in a scholarly article for Harvard Studies in Classical Philology ("October Horse," 1981) by C. Bennett Pascal (Professor of Classics at the University of Oregon), the race of the October Horse would be run at the end of the season of military campaigns, "as an expiatory sacrifice to cleanse the army of the taint of human blood and foreign contact."

 

But the sacrifice of the horse was also tied into an agricultural ritual, as the decapitated head of the horse would be garlanded with loaves of bread, representing a successful crop of grain for the year. Mars, while not an agricultural deity, nevertheless was tied into the agricultural aspect of the ritual, in that Mars was given responsibility for that successful crop by virtue of the fact that he kept the harvest safe by repelling the enemy from the fields.

 

-- Nephele

 

Wow, that's really interesting. The 'cleansing of the soldiers' makes sense--a way to detox from the warring lifestyle, as such. The recognition of the agricultural community that the soldiers, who kept the enemies at bay, helped them in their business is quite remarkable to me.

 

I realize that, while Rome was a military-driven society at the start, it was in no way near the level that Sparta was. But did Spartans have a similar ritual? What about other societies; did they have a 'cleansing' ritual which also acknowledged the role of the soldier as a protector of society? Cleansing rituals, I would think, are not that uncommon, but the society essentially 'thanking' them and the gods involved for continued protection at the same ritual seems different to me.

[Kosmo]

Doc, I think Sonic was ironic in the first quote you use.

 

I wonder if all animal butchering in Rome and Greek agricultural society had a ritual and a simbolic meaning, not only the one we will consider an animal sacrifice. We see the slaughtering as an economic activity but for traditional societies it might have had a religious one as well. This will not be surprising as all human activities were required some religious ritual. For sure cereal crops harvest was accompanied by rites and offerings in all agricultural societies.

[sonic]

Doc, I think you've mistaken my intent and read the post literally rather than as I intended - which is my fault. When I wrote that, '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 ..........?' I was being ironic. The lump of metal I was referring top was a - can't remember the word! - model of the planets that was geared and allowed the planets to revolve around the world at the correct speeds. Until it was found, we had no idea that the Greeks had ever built anything like that. I was using this as proof that, just because we have no written record, the Greeks actually appear to have been excellent engineers and we cannot rely simply on the written evidence.

 

I was using this example to emphasise my position with regard to religion. We have very few examples of what the ancients thought about religion, mainly because the vast majority went unheard. When at University I was asked by someone who had just watched a dramatisation of a Jane Austin novel on the TV whether anybody actually worked at the time, or if they all lived in big houses and wrote books and letters. At first I couldn't believe the question, but on reflection this reflects our ignorance of the distant past. Just because Jane Austin assumed that her readers were all of the same class and upbringing as her doesn't mean that the whole of society thought like she did or lived in the same manner. The same holds true for ancient authors.

 

 

I find your position very western-centric, and I cannot agree. If one takes into account various modern societies around the globe, there are always religious rituals which are followed by those who wholely believe in the religion, as well as those who do not fully believe but follow tradition in order to 'be like the others' in society, and those who do not always participate. I would argue that most people (not necessarily all) acknowledge a 'higher spiritual force' that somehow governs life. Many societies have formalized that notion of a 'higher spiritual force' into a religion, and then adding dogma. Many follow these formalized religions and the dogma and traditions that are created. But there are always those who simply acknowledge this 'higher spiritual force' and that's it, without following the formalized religion. This is human nature.

 

My point is that if you live in a society where if you 'don't believe' you are shunned, then there are less possibilities of documented proof of dissension. In order to be published and recognized, you have to toe the societal line...this is as true today as it ever has been! Furthermore, we do not possess all documents from ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, or any other ancient society, so we cannot presume evidence that we do not have. We can only analyze evidence that we do have, and acknowledge that there are other possibilities out there that haven't been found as of yet.

 

To a great degree I agree with you, yet the thread began by asking whether or not the institution of animal sacrifice was a serious affair or was an axcuse just to have a 'barby'. If looked at in that perspective, am I right in saying that actually it would not have been seen in public as just an excuse to eat meat, but possibly by a minority in private, with the rest of the population either believing or not daring to comment about their scepticism?

 

If so, what proprtion of society would think of the excerice as just a barbecue and how many would see it as a valid religious ceremony?

 

Sonic

 

PS. I still think that more people believed in the Gods than we do, mainly because the ancient societies we are discussing are from the West!

 

PPS Thanks for the support Kosmo!

Edited June 27, 2007 by sonic

[M. Porcius Cato]

Why did the ancients engage in animal sacrifice? I'd previously pointed out that Ovid claimed that the gods could be propitiated with mere incense. If this view were widespread (did anyone maintain the contrary?), then one must ask why the religious colleges went to the additional bother of sacrificing whole animals, and why they distributed the meat of the sacrifices to the people.

 

Given that these sacrifices were conducted as part of a state religion, given that the administration of the state religion was conducted by priests who were always members of the socio-political elite, given that the socio-political elite was very often irreligious (particularly in the middle to late Republic), and given that the political status of this less-religious elite derived partly from the services that they could offer to the Roman people, it seems likely to me that the animal sacrifices were continued for political functions, long after they had ceased to have any real religious significance for those who sponsored them (i.e., they were a holy barbeque).

 

Since the "holy bbq" characterization is contingent on at least four separate assumptions, there must be many cases where the assumptions do not hold and the characterization may not apply, including private sacrifices of animals and sacrifices in the pre-Hellenistic world (when the political elite in Rome seemed more religious).

 

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?

 

No, I don't think that the lares and penates served a purely decorative function, particularly since they weren't displayed in that way. More broadly, I'm not arguing (like Malinowski) for a functionalist explanation for all religious practices. But I think they have their place. While the lares and penates weren't typically used for decoration, some images of the gods were purely decorative and non-religious. Moreover, to point out the obvious, ordinary people and slaves typically could not afford to sacrifice oxen, sheep, and pigs to hand out to their neighbors. Consequently, the beliefs of slaves and the poor are irrelevant to the conduct of the state religion.

 

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.

What you taught schoolchildren is simplistic and misleading. Sometimes, you CAN apply "our" mores and morals to the ancients because we inherited those mores and morals from the ancients. Sometimes, you can't--because we've either innovated new norms or inherited other norms that came after the ancients. To know the difference, you could have taught them, one must study intellectual and social history. It's really too bad that you had a perfect opportunity to introduce children to the idea that our modern behavior and ideas owe their existence to the ancients, and instead you expressed the same gutter relativism they hear everywhere.

 

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 ..........

... computational engine. You're thinking of the Antikythera Mechanism.

[docoflove1974]

Sonic, you're right (as is Kosmo) that I didn't pick up on the irony of your post. I do apologize for that.

 

To a great degree I agree with you, yet the thread began by asking whether or not the institution of animal sacrifice was a serious affair or was an axcuse just to have a 'barby'. If looked at in that perspective, am I right in saying that actually it would not have been seen in public as just an excuse to eat meat, but possibly by a minority in private, with the rest of the population either believing or not daring to comment about their scepticism?

 

If so, what proprtion of society would think of the excerice as just a barbecue and how many would see it as a valid religious ceremony?

 

I don't know that you are right that only a minority thought of an animal sacrifice as a BBQ with the remainder treating it as a religious ceremony. I think I would side with MPC on this one, that many would feel that it's both a religious affair and a BBQ. I think many--maybe not the majority, but certainly a good portion of the populace--were not as strongly religious as you are intimating. As for a percentage, I have no idea, nor does anyone.

[sonic]

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.

What you taught schoolchildren is simplistic and misleading. Sometimes, you CAN apply "our" mores and morals to the ancients because we inherited those mores and morals from the ancients. Sometimes, you can't--because we've either innovated new norms or inherited other norms that came after the ancients. To know the difference, you could have taught them, one must study intellectual and social history. It's really too bad that you had a perfect opportunity to introduce children to the idea that our modern behavior and ideas owe their existence to the ancients, and instead you expressed the same gutter relativism they hear everywhere.

 

Do not criticise my teaching ability - you do not have the right, since you were neither there, nor have you had experience of teaching underpriviliged English children about the realities of history. I always pointed out that we are the direct inheritors of ancient social and religious values, but the children themselves have little connection to these values and are not interested in them. Until you have taught such children, pllease keep your opinions to yourself!!

 

However, on a lighter note....

... computational engine. You're thinking of the Antikythera Mechanism.

 

Yes I am, thanks for that. It's a sign of old age when you can't remember anything!!

 

The worst thing I have found about all forums on the internet is that when, like me, you have to type in a very limited timespan (due to a two-year-old anklebiter getting at you!) you can often overstate or misread by mistake and then have your words thrown back in your face.

 

Of course I think that the majority of the ancient world saw a religious festival, whether or not accompanied by an animal sacrifice, as fulfilling both religious and social functions: even today most religions treat their rites with due respect, but then have a real good time afterwards!! If I ever gave the impression otherwise, I apologise. However, I still believe that a larger proportion of the population was more religious than you think.

 

Wasn't there a theory that the rise of Christianity was due to a disillusion with the old gods caused by the benefits never seeming to go to the peasants? Therefore, when Christianity came along, with its offer of suffering in this world but bliss in the next, the poorer classes saw this as 'their' religion? I would suggest that maybe their willingness to adopt a different religion stemmed from a desire to believe in gods, but a belief that the traditional Roman pantheon were just not on their side?

[The Augusta]

To a great degree I agree with you, yet the thread began by asking whether or not the institution of animal sacrifice was a serious affair or was an excuse just to have a 'barby'. If looked at in that perspective, am I right in saying that actually it would not have been seen in public as just an excuse to eat meat, but possibly by a minority in private, with the rest of the population either believing or not daring to comment about their scepticism?

 

If so, what proportion of society would think of the excerice as just a barbecue and how many would see it as a valid religious ceremony?

 

Sonic

 

Sonic, you have made some very good points - but I have to jump in on this one. I note that you are from the UK, as am I - and the North, as am I. You must remember the old Whitsun celebrations, when all we children put on our new clothes and went around to our neighbours' houses to be given money for showing off the new clothes. There then followed the Whit Walks where we all displayed our new clothes again walking in some pageant or other behind banners associated with our churches or Sunday Schools. I was brought up a working class girl. I can honestly say that the whole of my class in school and my neighbours in the local community all saw the main objective of Whitsuntide to be the sallying forth to show off new clothes, and 'walk with the scholars'. Our parents saved through the year to make sure we were well turned out. That was the sole meaning of Whitsun for us. The fact that it represented the ascension of Christ into heaven totally passed us by - and I am NOT joking.

 

Couldn't a similar mindset have operated in ancient Rome? The poor and working classes would see the great festivals and sacrifices where the edible parts of animals were given to the populace as a reason to celebrate in itself. They may not have gone home to dwell on the deeper meaning of sacrificing an ox to whatever god it was.

 

Just a thought.

Edited June 27, 2007 by The Augusta

[M. Porcius Cato]

You must remember the old Whitsun celebrations, when all we children put on our new clothes and went around to our neighbours' houses to be given money for showing off the new clothes. There then followed the Whit Walks where we all displayed our new clothes again walking in some pageant or other behind banners associated with our churches or Sunday Schools. ... The fact that it represented the ascension of Christ into heaven totally passed us by - and I am NOT joking.

 

Here's the interesting part--if you look at academic descriptions of Whitsun, you'd never hear your interpretations.

[docoflove1974]

You must remember the old Whitsun celebrations, when all we children put on our new clothes and went around to our neighbours' houses to be given money for showing off the new clothes. There then followed the Whit Walks where we all displayed our new clothes again walking in some pageant or other behind banners associated with our churches or Sunday Schools. ... The fact that it represented the ascension of Christ into heaven totally passed us by - and I am NOT joking.

 

Here's the interesting part--if you look at academic descriptions of Whitsun, you'd never hear your interpretations.

 

Exactly. Recorded documents, and history, are biased by the viewpoint that the writer wishes to project.

[sonic]

You must remember the old Whitsun celebrations, when all we children put on our new clothes and went around to our neighbours' houses to be given money for showing off the new clothes. There then followed the Whit Walks where we all displayed our new clothes again walking in some pageant or other behind banners associated with our churches or Sunday Schools. ... The fact that it represented the ascension of Christ into heaven totally passed us by - and I am NOT joking.

 

Here's the interesting part--if you look at academic descriptions of Whitsun, you'd never hear your interpretations.

 

Exactly. Recorded documents, and history, are biased by the viewpoint that the writer wishes to project.

 

Which has always been exactly my point. To imply a great deal of cynicism to religion simply because our surviving sources do should not blind us to the fact that we do not know how the average peasant worshipped.

 

Sonic, you have made some very good points - but I have to jump in on this one. I note that you are from the UK, as am I - and the North, as am I. You must remember the old Whitsun celebrations, when all we children put on our new clothes and went around to our neighbours' houses to be given money for showing off the new clothes. There then followed the Whit Walks where we all displayed our new clothes again walking in some pageant or other behind banners associated with our churches or Sunday Schools. I was brought up a working class girl. I can honestly say that the whole of my class in school and my neighbours in the local community all saw the main objective of Whitsuntide to be the sallying forth to show off new clothes, and 'walk with the scholars'. Our parents saved through the year to make sure we were well turned out. That was the sole meaning of Whitsun for us. The fact that it represented the ascension of Christ into heaven totally passed us by - and I am NOT joking.

 

Couldn't a similar mindset have operated in ancient Rome? The poor and working classes would see the great festivals and sacrifices where the edible parts of animals were given to the populace as a reason to celebrate in itself. They may not have gone home to dwell on the deeper meaning of sacrificing an ox to whatever god it was.

 

Just a thought.

 

I agree - grudgingly - with many of the points you raise, but would argue that we unfortunately will never know for sure. However, the fact that you did not understand what was going on surely adds a little weight to my point of view, since it is possible that the people of Rome knew more about their religion?

 

Yet I am intrigued by one point. Yes, I am from the North of England, like yourself, but my mother was a Mormon (a faith which she no longer adheres to), so I have no idea of what you are talking about with your story of the old Whitsun celebrations!! Going around peoples' houses and collecting money for wearing new clothes??

 

You were lucky! I only had my sister's cast offs. I wasn't given money, but a jail sentence for wearing women's clothing!!

Edited June 27, 2007 by sonic