Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth

185 Pages·1986·26.31 MB·English

by  Walter Burkert

FIOMO NECANS
TheA nthropologoyf AncientG reek
SacrificiqRl itual andM tlth
bV
WALIER BURKERT
Translatebdy
PETERB ING
UNIVERSITYO F CALIFORNIA PRESS
Berkeley LosA ngeles London
f-.
.;
-L
i1,
cr
For ReinholdM erlcelbsch
Originally published in German by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin,
under the title Homo Necans( 1972).
University of California Press
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California
University of California Press, Ltd.
London, England
@ 1983by
The Regents of the University of California
Library of CongressC atalogingi n PublicationD ata
Burkert, Walter r93r-
Homo necans.
Translationo f: Homo necans.
Bibliography: p.
r. Ritesa nd ceremonies-Greece. z. Sacrifice.
3. Mythology, Greek. 4. Greece-Religion. I. Title.
sr788.a8V3 rg8) zgz'. 38 77-93423
rsrw o-5zo-o5875-5
Printed in the United Stateso f America
456789
The paper used in this publication meetst he minimum requirements
of American National Standardf or llformation Sciences-Permanence
of Paperf or Printed Library Materials,A NSI 49.48-r984.
xcti rair' Eart rd. puarr1pca, cvueltovrt
gduut. gouoL xo.i ragoc
Clemento f Alexandria
et nos servasti_sanguine
fuso
Mithraic inscriptionS, antap riscaR, ome
Contents
Translator'sP reface xi
Prefacteo theE nglishE dition xiii
Listo f lllustrations xvii
lntroduction xix
I. SACRIFICE,H UNTING, AND FUNERARYR ITUALS
r. Sacrificea s an Act of Killing 1
z. TheE tsolutionarEyx planationP: rimitiaeM an as Hunter 72
3. Ritualization 22
4. Myth and Ritual 29
5, TheF unctiona nd Transformationo f Ritual Killing J5
6. Funerary Ritual 48
7. TheS exualizationo f Ritual Killing: Maiden Sacrifice,
PhallusC uIt 58
8. FatherG oda ndG reatG oddess 72
il. WEREWOLVESA ROUND THE TRIPOD KETTLE 83
r. Lykniaa nd Lykaion 84
z. Pelopsa t Olympia 93
3. Thyestesa nd Harpagos 1o3
4. Aristaiosa ndA ktaion 1o9
5. TheD elphicT ripod tr6
6. A Glancea t Odysseus t3o
m.
DISSOLUTION AND NEW YEAR'SF ESTIVAL a35
r. FromO x-Slayingto theP anathenaFice stiaal t36
Dipolieia q6
Skira 74)
IX
Arrhephoria 71'o
Panathenaia 754
Excursus: The Troian Horse 158
Translator'sP reface
2. Argos and Argeiphontes 16r
). Agrionia $8
4.Tereusa nd the Nightingale a79
5.Antiope and EPoPeus 185
6.The Lemnian Women 79o
7.The Return of the DolPhin t96
8.Fish Adaent 2o4
IV. ANTHESTERIA 273 walter Burkert'ss tyle is often suggestiver ather than explicit, his
7. Testimoniaa nd Dissemination 213 descriptionsa re vivid (at times almost visionary)r ather than dryly ac-
2. Pithoigia and Choes zt6 ademic,a nd he doesn ot hesitatet o use colroquiarismss o as to make a
3.Carians or Keres zz6 point more forcefully. In the processo f translation, such featuresi n-
i SacredM arriage and Lenaia-Vases z3o evitably undergo a certain levelling. I have tried, however, to main-
?'
5.Chytroi qnd Aiora 48 tain the drama and drive of ProfessorB urkert'sp rose.I n the German,
6.Protesilaos 243 Homo Necansi s remarkable for being both an exemplary piece of
scholarshipa nd just plain good reading. It is my hope that itiemains
V. ELEUSIS 248 so in the.English.
Among the many friends and colleaguesw ho helped me at vari-
t. Documentatioann d Secret 248
ous stagesi n this translation,s pecialt hanks are due to fames Fanto,
z. TheM yth of Korea nd Pig-Sacrifice2 56
ProfessorB ruce Frier, ProfessorL udwig Koenen, Charlotte Melin,
3. Myesisa nd Synthema 265 ProfessorW illiam Owens, and ProfessorS usan Scheinberg.I was
4. TheS acrificien the Telesterion2 74 privileged to spend severale njoyable and productive days revising
5. OaercominDg eatha nd EncounterinDg eath:I nitiationa nd the manuscript with ProfessorB urkert in Uster. Finally my thanki
Sacrifice zg3
to Doris Kretschmer of the University of California piess who en-
trusted this project to me and politely,b ut firmly, kept my noset o the
Abbreaiationasn d Bibliography 299
grindstone.
Indexo f Cult Sitesa ndF estiuals 3o9
PHILADELrHIA, NovEMBnn rg8z
Index of Nameso f Godsa nd Heroes 3a3
PeterB ing
lndexo f Personasn d Things )79
lndex of GreekW ords 33a
xi
Prefacet o the English Edition
It is with some hesitationt hat I present this book, conceivedi n
the sixties, to an Anglo-American public of the eighties. An holistic
synthesisi n the field of anthropology may appear preposterousa nd
inadequatea t any time; and changesi n approach, method, and in-
terest, which have been especiallym arked in these decades-be it
through progressi n the individual brancheso f study, be it through
changes.opf aradigmso r evenf ashions-make such an attempt all the
more questionable.W hen this book appearedi n German in 1972,i t
could claim to be revolutionary in various respects.T o a field still
dominated largely by philological-historicapl ositivism or by the resi-
due of the Tylorian approach in Nilsson and Deubner, it brought a
comprehensivea nd consistenta pplicationo f the myth-and-ritual po-
sition; it introduced, after Harrison's Themis,f unctionalism to the
study of Greek religion; it used a form of structuralismi n interpreting
the complexeso f mythical tales and festivals;a nd it made a first at-
tempt to apply ethology to religious history. In the English-speaking
world, ritualism and functionalismh ad made their mark long before,
and much more on all thesel ines hasb eenw orked out, disseminated,
and discussedi n the last decade.W hat was originally novel and dar-
ing may thus soon apPeara ntiquated.T he sociala specto f religion in
generala nd the central role of sacrificei n ancient religion are taken
for granted today.M uch of the credit goest o the schoolo f Jean-Pierre
Vernant and Marcel Detienne in Paris.R en6G irard's Violencea nd the
Sacredw, hich appearedi n the samey ear as HomoN ecansa nd may be
seena s largelyp aralleli n intent (cf. L5.n.r), was also instrumental.
More generally,w e have seen the swift rise of semiologya nd struc-
turalism, which, though judged by some to be already past their
apogee, still command attention and discussion.W e have likewise
witnessedt he emergenceo f sociobiologyw, hich aspirest o a new syn-
thesiso f natural and socials ciencesT. o keep up with all thesed evel-
opments and iniegrate them into HomoN ecanws ould virtually require
xlll
PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION
another book replacing the tentative essay that now constitutes my for sacrifice has been called into question again (see I.z.n.6). yet the
first Cchhaapptteerr.s II through V appear less problematical. They elaborate ihsi.stteonrciaen a to fs oremlieg iosnp esctiiflilc i npsoiisntts_ tchhaimt rpeirli,greio"ns muastr eh aavpep acroemnetl vin tiorr eelxi__
basic ritual structures reflected in myth, demonstrating correspon- gious-and that it first becomes disceinibre with funera.y uni nrr.,t_
dences and integrating isolated pie-9gsi nto a comprehensive whole. ing ritual. In view of all this it is essential to note that the lor.r" or
As a description-this *ill prorr. ualid.in its own right. The attempt, historical development as delineated in Homo Necqnsd oes not at any
however, to extrapolate from this an historical-causal explanation of stage require that "all" men acted or experienced things in a certain
the phenomena-that is, to derive sacrifice from hunting and religion way-e'9., that all hunters feel sympathy for their quairy or remorse
from sacrificial ritual-could be condemned by the stern rules of over their hunting-but only that ro*" iid indeed instiiute forms of
many a methodology. Yet I have decided to run this risk rather than behavior that became traditional and had a formative influence on the
limit my perspectives by preestablished rules. high cultures accessible to historical investigation. For the srrange
In so doing, I have inevitably made use of various hypotheses prominence of animal sraughter in ancient rer'igion this still seems to
concerning prehistory, sociology, and psychology that are open to er- be the most economical, and most humane, exllanation.
ror and to the possibility of attack and falsification in the course of . -F dealing with tradition, Homo Necanst akes a stance that is
further research. There is no denying that a decisive impulse for the hardly popular: it restricts the role of creative freedom a.d fantasy; it
thesis of Homo Necans came from Konrad Lorenz's On Aggression, reduces "ideas" to the imprinting effect of cultural transfer. on the
which seemed to offer new insight into the disquieting manifestations other hand, modern insistence on ,,creativity,, may simply be an at_
of violence, which are so prominent in human affairs and not least in tempt to compensate for the enormous anonymous constraints at
the ancient world. Lorenz's assertions about the innate roots of ag- work in our society. Nobody wants to question the spiritual achieve-
gression and its necessary functions have come under vigorous attack ments of mankind, but these may have it.ung" and opaque substruc-
by progressive sociologists. Some overstatements no doubt have been tures. In pointing them out it is perhaps wisest not even to shun the
corrected, but some of the criticism and subsequent neglect may be accusation of reductionism, for, though from a structuralist-semiotic
viewed as part of the schizophrenia of our world, which pursues the perspective one may well describe religion as the relations between
ideal of an ever more human, more easygoing life amid growing inse- men and gods, with sacrifice mediating between them, the term gods
curity and uncontrolled violence. Fashionable psychology attempts to nonetheless remains fluid and in need of explanation, while sacrifice
eradicate feelings of guilt from the human psyche; ideas of atonement is a fact.
appear old-fashioned or even perverse. The thrust of Homo Necans The thesis that those groups united by religious ritual have his-
runs counter to these trends. It attempts to show that things were dif- torically been most successful seems to conflict *itn tn" modern ver-
ferent in the formative period of oui civilization; it arguJs that soli- sion of the theory of evolution. That theory now discards the concept
darity was achieved through a sacred crime with due reparation. And 9f qlo"p selection and insists, rather, on ih" self-perpetuation of the
while it has no intention of thwarting modern optimism, it tries to "selfish gene" (see I.3.n.9). It may be pointed out bnce more that this
warn against ignoring what was formerly the case. is a predictable modern perspective ieflecting the disintegration of
Great advances have been made in prehistory and especially in our society. whether it applies to the history of culturally dJtermined
primatology. We now know there are hunts with subsequent ,,distri- groups is another question. The thesis of Homo Necansd oes not hy-
bbeu tmioonr eo f hmuemaatn" atmhaonn gh cahdi mbepeann zseuessp (esceteeI d.z; .an .czh3im)-psahnozweien g, ,rathraerm,,h atos tpoo.tchoensfirzoen ta bthoeu t pgoewneert ica nfidx aetifofenc to of f, ,thraudmitaionn n aatsu rfeu.il,y, Ita ss epeoksss,i rbarteh.e Inr,
been observed, and there are reports of intentionaf kitting by gorillas this sense it is radically historical, and factual.
and orangutans (see I.6.n.5). The picture of evolution hai become
ever richer in details but increasingly blurred in its outlines. In reac- pre.paring the translation, I have only been able to rework the
tion to the "hunting hypothesis" of Robert Ardrey and others, spe- ototrography and notes to a limited extent. They still largely reflect
cialists are now reluctant to lay claim to knowledge of the importance the state of the relevant scholarship in 1972. I have, howlver, taken
of hunting behavior. what had been taken to be lhe earliest evidence the opportunity to refer to more recent specialized studies and stan-
PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION
dard works and to make the documentation more complete and up-
to-date.
ItremainstothanktheUniversityofCaliforniaPressandPeter
List of Illustrations
Bing, the translator, for their untiring efforts'
usrER,y urv r98z
WalterB urkert
following pagef i4
r. Sacrificialp rocession.A ttic black-figurec up.
z. Preparation for sacrifice. Attic red-figure bell crater.
3. Leopard men hunting staga nd boar. Wall painting from Qatal
Htiyrik.
4- Sacrificial feast: roasting and cooking. Caeretan hydria.
5. Warrior rising from a tripod cauldron. Mitra from Axos.
6. Bulls strolling around an altar. Attic black-figure oinochoe.
'Lenaia-vase'.
n Attic red-figure stamnos.
8. Mystery initiation: pig sacrifice. Lovatelli urn.
9. Mystery initiation: purification by liknon. Lovatelli urn.
xvll
Introduction
It is not so much the limits of our knowledge as the superabun-
dance of what can be known that makes an attempt to expliin man's
religious behavior an almost hopelesse nterprise.T he mass of avail-
able data and interpretation has long exceededt he limits of what an
individual can grasp and assimilate.P erhapst his stream of informa-
tion will soon be ordered and surveyedt hrough a collectivee ffort us-
ing computels, but as long as intellectuali ndependencep revails and
an individual must seek to orient himself within his own world, he
may-indeed, he must-take the risk of projectinga model of his sit-
uation and reducing a confusing multiplicity into a comprehensible
form.
A philologist who startsf rom ancientG reekt extsa nd attemptst o
find biological, psychological,a nd sociologicale xplanationsf oi reli-
gious phenomenan aturally runs the risk of juggling too many balls at
once and dropping them all. And if it is strangef or a philologist to
venture beyond scrupulous discussiono f his texts, psychology and
sociologya re just as reluctant to burden their analyseso f contempo-
rary phenomenaw ith an historicalp erspectives tretchingb ack to an-
tiquity and beyond. There is a danger that important biological,p sy-
chological, and ethnological findings be overlooked, juit as can
happen with archaeologicafl inds, and it is hardly possible for the
non-specialistt o give the Near Easterne videncet he expert treatment
it requires.Y et we must not assumet hat all subiectsf ii neatlv within
the limits of a particular discipline. Even philology depends on a bio-
logically,p sychologicallya, nd sociologicallyd eteimined environment
and tradition to provide its basisf or understanding.A nd just as biol-
ogy acquireda n historical dimension with the concepto f evolution,r
so sociology,l ike psychologyb efore it, should uccepft he notion that
'H.
Diels, lnternationale wochenshrift ) (1gog), g9o, discussed the "historicizins of na-
ture" through Darwin's the<-rry
xix
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
human societyi s shapedb y the past and.c an be understood only by stood' Thus, preciselyb ecauser eligious phenomenas eemm ore and
examining its"develoim"nf ou"t long periods of time' more to elude the modern world's grasp, mere gathering of material
Of course,t tr" uii of understandingi tself presentsu s with prob- can shed no more light on them than can the uncontrolledr esonances
lems that have been widely discussed' If by "understanding" we of emotional understanding.
mean that the outside world will ultimately correspondt o-our exPec- Especiallyw hen dealing with foreign or extinct religions, an out-
sider finds himself confronted, as it were, with a strange and un-
tutio"'andthoughtstructures,thenweadmitthatthediversityof
known language:t o understand it, he must translatei t. This means
thatworldisperceivedasthoughthroughapredeterminedfilterand
;ir;;;;r;;fi b" diff"rent kinds of understanding,d istinguisheda c- first of all that there should be no ambiguity about the languagei nto
.*d*_-; individuals and groups. But if reality were not anthropo- which one translates.T o vacillateb etween transformationa nd imita-
or at leasti ntellectuallyd etermined, then understanding tion will produce the kind of misunderstandingst hat do, in fact,
"i;i;i;ii;?rr.r";iafyl sensew ould be altogetheri mpossible.T he possibility dominate many controversiesin the study of religion. If one tries to
,"-uir* of using our consciousnessf,u lly awareo f thesep roblems,t o translateo ne religion into the languageo f another, one finds, just as
unravel the courseo f receivedt radition,' and to adapt the structures in working with ordinary languageso f different nations, that this is
of understanding to the ever-new realities with which we are con- only possible to a limited degree. Equivalent expressionsw ill fre-
fronted and to *tl.t man, whether he likes it or not, remains tied. quently be lacking, due to the respectived ifferencesin religiousp rac-
our task is to seek the perspectivest hat give us the broadest and tice and in living conditions. If we take up foreign words such as
clearestv iew, to project a-modelt hat accountsf or the various areaso f totem,t abu, and mana,t heir meaning remainsu nclear or changesa c-
experiencea s comprehensivelya s possiblea nd that is susceptiblet o cording to the interpreter'si ntent. If we invent new conceptss uch as
frequent factualv eiification. We cannoth ope that our model will be a aegetatiosnp irit or YearD aemon,t3h eir legitimacyr emains a matter of
finiihed product; it is merely an attempt set forward for discussion, dispute, especiallyi f it is uncleara t what point the conceptb ecomesa
with full knowledge of its tentative nature- new myth itself.
Every religionaspirest o the absolute.I ts claims,w hen seenf rom The languaget hat has proved the most generallyu nderstooda nd
within, make it self-sufficient.I t establishesa nd explains,b ut needs cross-culturali s that of secularizeds cholarship.I ts practicet oday is
no explanation.W ithin this sphereo f power, any discussiona bout re- determinedb y sciencei n its broadests ense,i ts systemo f rules by the
ligion will almost automaticallyb ecomea religious Pronouncement, laws of logic. It may, of course,s eemt he most questionablee ndeavor
especiallya s the essenceo f religion is an attempt at expressiona nd of all to try to translater eligiousp henomenai nto this language;b y its
communication.I n this way, however,r eligion becomest he agenta nd self-conceptiona, religion must deny that such explanationsa re pos-
the medium of communication rather than its subiect. This is pre- sible. However, scholarship is free to study even the rejection of
cisely why religious discussiona bout religion is effective,f or it finds knowledgea nd repudiation of independentt hought, for scholarship,
resonancein nearly everyone.T hus, evenw hen the seriousnesso f re- in attempting to understand the world, has the broader perspective
ligious practicei s replacedb y the ambiguousa nd non-binding "as if" here and cannot abstain from analyzing the worldwide fact of reli-
of emotional understanding,t his mode of discourser emainse ntirely gion. This is not a hopelessu ndertaking.nH owever, a discussiono f
respectablee ven in a secularizeds ociety. religion must then be anything but religious.
The opposite extreme in the study of religion is likewise gener-
ally accepteda nd carriesn o risk: this is the lexicographicadl ocumen- 3W. Mannhardt, Die KorndiimonenQ 868);H arrison (r9z) 31r-34. Especially dangerous
tation and arrangemento f the details that have been observed and is the little word is, which confounds translation, allegory, classification, and onlologi-
transmittedt o us from the past. And yet a lexiconw ill not give us an caf or psychological realization. See, for instance, Nilsson jgo6) z7: "wenn der Stier des
understanding of the language if the grammar is unknown or dis- Zeus Sosipolis ein Korngeist ist, muss der des Zeus Polieus es auch sein.',
aE.
regarded and if the practice under discussionh as not been under- E. Evans-Pritchard, Theorieso f Primitiae Religion( 1965), offers a survey with pene-
trating criticism that leads to the conclusion that the "believer" is s-.rperiort o the "non-
believer" (rzr). still fundamental, however, is E. Durkheirn's Lesf ormesi limentaires tlel a
zFor the fundamental philosophical treatment see H. G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Me- ttte religieuse( r9rz). Psychoanalytical enterprises-most recently La Barre j97o)-are
thode Q965\'). also to be taken seriously.
xxl