Atherinus Mullus - tspace.library.utoronto.ca · Two sharks with rather generic names have prices...

The Fish Remains 515

Table 6.20. Percentage of fish consumed in 1948 by type. (Data from Allbaugh 1953: 512, table A 51)

PercentageCategory Common Name Taxon Sold as of Fish

Processed fish Cod Gadus morhua “Salted and dried” 42.7Herring Clupea harengus “Dry and cured” 20.7Sardines Sardina pilchardus “Dry cured” 6.5Sardines Sardina pilchardus “Canned in oil” 1.3Fish Unspecified “Canned” 0.3

Total 71.5

Fresh fish Smelt Atherinus Fresh 19.6Sea bream Sparidae Fresh 3.9Mullet Mullus (?) Fresh 3.4Herring Clupea harengus Fresh 1.7

Total 28.6

fish remains are likely to be greatly underrepresented in archaeological assemblages (see, e.g.,A. Jones 1990), it must be remembered that given equal numbers of fish and large mammalremains, the latter represent a much greater amount of food simply in terms of the mass offlesh available for consumption.

According to a 1948 survey, the Cretan diet in the middle of this century consisted chieflyof vegetable foods (cereals, vegetables, fruits, and olive oil predominating), along with pulsesand nuts (especially during the winter) and potatoes (a New World crop; Allbaugh 1953:99–100, 114–15). Meat, fish, milk, and eggs were consumed in small amounts but were animportant source of protein and niacin. The average consumption of fish, both fresh andprocessed, was about 2.1% of the total 926 lb. [420 kg] of food consumed annually by individualsin the study (about 6 oz. [170.1 g] per capita per week, or 19.5 lb. [8.84 kg] per capita peryear; Allbaugh 1953: 110, 130). Squid, octopus, and cuttlefish, however, were included as fishin the 1948 survey, and when they are subtracted, the figure drops to only 1.75%. Closerexamination of the fish consumed (Table 6.20) raises the possibility that even this figure ishigher than in the IA. Several of the fish named do not occur in the Mediterranean, and sothe percentages need to be interpreted with care. Salted cod (actually cod and related fish)was imported from northern Europe or even the northeastern coast of North America. Herringare somewhat similar; they do not occur in the Mediterranean, although several close relativesdo. The dry herring and the preserved sardines listed in the survey are probably imported.The fresh “herring” are, most likely, species related to herring. Two smelt species occur inthe Mediterranean (both in the genus Atherinus). The “mullet” are not identified as either redmullet (Mullus) or gray mullet (Mugilidae), but I assume the former is intended, since theyare more common in Cretan waters. Thus three-quarters of the fish consumed in the 1948survey was imported. Unless local fisheries were more productive, or imports (Clarias gariepinus

516 The Iron Age Fauna

and other fish from Egypt and fish sauces?) were considerable, fish consumption in the IAmay have been lower than in 1948. In any event, the contribution of fish to the total amountof food (926 lb. [420 kg]) is quite low; the 16.2 lb. [7.35 kg] (1.75%) of fish pales beside the282 lb. [127.9 kg] of cereals (30.5%) consumed yearly per capita (Allbaugh 1953: 131). Determin-ing the caloric contribution of fish is complicated by the fact that several different types offish and preparation are involved. Allbaugh (1953: 132), however, placed the combined caloriccontribution of meat, fish, and eggs at only 4%. As a general caveat, however, the survey wasundertaken soon after World War II, and using the 1948 data as a baseline may be misleading.The amount of fish imported may be higher than in normal circumstances, and the totalamount consumed (as well as meat and eggs) may be lower than usual.

The pre-eminence of cereals in the Classical diet has been stressed in recent studies (Gallant1985; 1991; Sallares 1991). By comparing ethnographic data on Malaysian fishing productivityand estimates of Classical wheat production, T. Gallant analyzed Classical fishing productiv-ity as a matter of basic labor input and caloric output. His conclusion (Gallant 1985: 16) isthat in order to obtain the equivalent caloric output of wheat farming by fishing, the laborinput has to be eleven times larger; moreover, the observed yield for Malaysian fishermen isnot substantially larger than the daily caloric requirement for one person. Gallant surmisesthat a Classical fisherman could not provide for a family through fishing alone (1985: 31).This bleak interpretation, however, assumes that the fish were being used only for personalconsumption, whereas the catch could be sold profitably if demand were high. By processingthe catch into fish sauce or other products, the fisherman, or another person, could increaseits value. Trade in processed fish took place, and that simple fact (represented at Kommosby the remains of Clarias gariepinus imported from the Levant or Nile) means that it was aprofitable enterprise.

Certainly not all fishing was done by full-time specialists. As a secondary occupation, fishingcould fit neatly into planting and harvesting schedules, providing an opportunity for farmersto convert spare time into food or capital. The catch of inshore coastal and demersal shelffish, which were probably the mainstay of Classical fisheries, varies throughout the year butnot nearly as markedly as that of pelagic fish. Most are taken year-round, with higher amountsin spring through fall and smaller quantities in winter, but some reverse this pattern. In their1974 study, M. Wagstaff, S. Augustson, and C. Gamble (1982: fig. 10.7) found that the monthlylabor input of 74 Melian farmers engaged in the cultivation of olives, wheat, vines, barley, andvegetables varied considerably throughout the year. While October and November, months inwhich fishing is generally good, were busy in terms of the agricultural calendar, the springfishing period, March through May, was relatively unencumbered. Farmers, and others whoseoccupations offered occasional slack time, could well have used such opportunities to supple-ment their own diet or, if the catch was good, sell or trade it. Data available for Crete andthe Kommos region support this view. Allbaugh (1953: 119–20, chap. 10) found that even


with the daily walking to and from fields, Cretan farmers worked only 160–200 days annually.Travel time to the small fields typical of the Kommos region is, in fact, only around 1.25hours, substantially shorter than the 2.0 hours recorded on Melos (Parsons 1995: 313). Theagricultural calendar in the Kommos region today shows many possibilities for opportunisticfishing, such as in March and April, which are not heavy in terms of other tasks (Parsons1995: 307, table 6.3).

Gallant’s (1985) use of calories to compare wheat and fish productivity is misleading inthat it masks important differences in the nutritional values of cereals and fish (M. J. Rose1994: 406–13). The amount of protein in fish ranges between 15 and 20%, which is comparableto the range for cereals and lentils (barley 10%, emmer 12%, einkorn 23%, and lentil 25%).Fish, however, have higher concentrations of the amino acids lysine and methionine thandoes cereal, and so their proteins are complementary in this respect. Similarly, for the Bvitamins fish are a good source of niacin, and grains of thiamine. The fat content of fish variesconsiderably. A well-fed herring has up to 20% fat, other species have less than 10% fat, andmost are below 5%. Cereals and lentils, by comparison, have less than 2%. Fat is an importantsource of energy, adds taste to food, carries fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K), and suppliesessential fatty acids the body is unable to synthesize. Fish, especially the livers of some species,are rich in vitamins A and D. Fish also have a substantial amount of calcium, much morethan cereals and lentils have, although the average phosphorus content of fish is less thanthat of barley.

In addition to being valued for their nutritional content or palatability, fish were esteemedfor their perceived curative powers. Classical beliefs in the medicinal worth of fish are wellattested in the written record. A selection of those compiled by D. W. Thompson (1947) forspecies found at Kommos gives an idea of the range of conditions for which people turnedto fish for relief:

Angel shark (Squatina squatina): incinerated skin cures pimples (p. 222),

Red mullet (Mullus): heals wounds made by sting rays, scorpions, and spiders; stopsvomiting; reduced to ashes cures sciatica and carbuncles; curbs desire in man, hindersconception in women (p. 268),

Pandora (Pagellus erythrinus): good for indigestion (p. 67),

Blotched picarel (Spicara maena): acts as a laxative; removes warts; cures the itch,boils, ulcers, various skin diseases, and angina (p. 155),

Parrotfish (Sparisoma cretense): cures jaundice (p. 241).


A key question posed by Gallant (1985) is, simply, Was fish cheap? To answer this question,he used a late-third-century-B.C. inscription from Akraiphia, Boeotia, that lists fish prices (forthe inscription, see Salviat and Vatin 1971; Schaps 1987; for identification of the fish in theinscription, see Dalby 1996: 67; Gallant 1985: 39–41). Even if one accepts the price for wheatthat Gallant uses, there are problems with his analysis: D. Schaps (1987) suggested an alternativeinterpretation of one of the monetary units on the inscription, throwing off Gallant’s calcula-tions; some of his species identifications are too ambitious; and, again, the comparison hemakes is ultimately in terms of raw calories. Despite these problems, Gallant’s conclusion(1985: 41, fig. 6) that fish was relatively expensive is probably true, even if his estimate thaton average it cost thirteen times as much as wheat may not be accurate. Although this studydoes suggest that fish were a costly dietary supplement for the average Akraiphian, it alsoexplains how fishermen could afford their occupation: The product was not cheap. Granted,middlemen may have taken the lion’s share of the profit, but the point is that fishing as anoccupation cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of caloric return for time invested.

The Akraiphia inscription is a tantalizing document. Many of the names of fish on it arepartially or wholly obliterated, and the same is true of the prices. Readable fish names withlegible corresponding prices are rare. In addition, there is the fundamental problem of identify-ing Classical fish names with species recognized today. Furthermore, the dialect used in theinscription is different from that used by Aristotle and others who wrote about fish in antiquity,a point made by Dalby (1996: 67). Given these difficulties, it is nearly miraculous that severalof the fish types found at Kommos appear in identifiable form and with prices intact. FollowingF. Salviat and C. Vatin (1971) and Schaps (1987), the prices are taken to be per mina (a littlemore than 1 lb. [0.5 kg]) of fish, and are given in obols and bronzes, with twelve bronze coins(chalkoi) per obol.

Two sharks with rather generic names have prices of three and nine bronzes. One sharkspecies at Kommos, angel shark (Squatina squatina), appears on the list for nine bronzes. Eel(Anguilla anguilla) and garfish (Belone belone), both found at Kommos, are both priced at oneobol, four bronzes. There is no mention of shore rockling (Gaidropsaurus mediterraneus) in theinscription, but another cod relative, perhaps hake (Merluccius merluccius), is listed at oneobol, four bronzes. Salviat and Vatin (1971) took one name (at one obol, four bronzes) to meanpike (Esox lucius) because it is included with fish from lakes. The name, however, applies tothe sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), which occurs at Kommos (Gallant 1985: 67; D. W. Thompson1947: 140–42, 151–52). The nature of the lake(s) from which fish in the inscription came isnot clear; Dicentrarchus tolerate brackish water and are found in lagoons and estuaries. Al-though none of the sea bream (Sparidae) at Kommos have preserved prices on the list, anothermember of the family, the black bream (Spondyliosoma cantharus), is given with a price of sixbronzes. There are numerous wrasse (Labridae) species in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean,and the three wrasses named in the inscription, not necessarily any of the three that occur atKommos, have prices of one obol, four bronzes, and one obol, five bronzes. With the parrotfish


(Sparisoma cretense), given at eight bronzes, the inscription and fauna remains correspond directly.Listed at one obol, four bronzes, is a gray mullet, perhaps thinlip gray mullet (Liza ramada), inthe family Mugilidae, which is known at Kommos from nondiagnostic vertebrae. The sameprice is given for a flatfish (Pleuronectidae), which may provide a benchmark for the sole(Solea solea) from Kommos. For comparison, the highest price listing to have survived, twoobols, two bronzes, is for belly cut of tuna (presumably bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus).

Although it is probably not safe to project even the relative values recorded on the Akraiphiaprice list to the earliest periods at Kommos, they may be a more acceptable yardstick for thelater periods. The prices given for the fish (or related fish) known at Kommos are all in themiddle or lower end.

F I S H I N G T E C H N O L O G Y

Classical fishing technology has been recently summarized by Gallant (1985) and J. Powell(1996), who draw mainly on Oppian’s Halieutica (written about the end of the second centuryafter Christ), supplemented by additional ancient authors and historical and ethnographicstudies of fishing practices in the Aegean and Mediterranean generally. To their dissectionof what Oppian did or did not mean concerning larger nets should be added the lists ofhumbler tackle dedicated to various deities by old fishermen and recorded in the GreekAnthology, an early-tenth-century-after-Christ compilation of material from the seventh cen-tury B.C. to the time of Justinian. Piso (VI.5), for example, offers Hermes his rods with lines,oar, hooks, net “fringed with lead,” weel (trap) float, creels, flint (for striking fire), and anchor.Cinyras (VI.25–6) gives the Nymphs his circular cast net. Poseidon receives from Diophantus(VI.4) a hook, poles, line, creels, trident, and two oars. There are more, but these convey thevariety of gear used by small-scale fishers and the sort of tackle that might have been dedicatedat a sanctuary such as at Kommos (see further comments in “Fish in Classical Cult and Ritual”).

Five hooks from Kommos can be assigned to the IA based on their contexts. Three wereoriginally published as Minoan, presumably because they are bronze and despite their havingcome from Hellenistic (M 60), Geometric/Archaic (M 106), and first-century-after-Christ (M127) findspots (Blitzer 1995: 511, 514, and 515).4 There are two additional hooks from Classicalcontexts (Schwab, Chap. 5, Section 10, 3 and 4). Two of the hooks are barbed, two unbarbed,and one is missing the tip. Four have gapes, the distance from the shank to the tip, of roughly1.5 cm. J. Powell (1996: 127–28) cautions against blindly using hook size to estimate the sizeof the intended catch because some fish have quite a small mouth in relation to body size.The majority of the fish at Kommos (Sciaenidae, Sparidae, and Labridae) have a relativelysmall mouth, however, and if the hooks found at the site were intended for such fish, theywould likely have been for larger individuals.

Eight lead line or net weights were found in sanctuary contexts, with three from TempleB levels (see Schwab, Chap. 5, Section 10, 19–26). Such weights, simple strips of lead foldedlengthwise over a line or edge of a net, are known from Middle Bronze Age through Byzantine


sites in the eastern Mediterranean. They could be used with single hooks on lines, multiplehooks on long lines set on the bottom, or circular cast nets or seines operated from smallboats or the shore. Their presence in Temple B levels is not surprising given the dedicationsof fishing gear recorded in the Greek Anthology, where nets “edged with lead” are specificallymentioned. In addition to lead weights, two sets of ten weathered pierced stones (J. W. Shaw,Chap. 5, Section 9, 3, from Geometric Building Z, and S 1979 from a Geometric level southof Temples A/B) may have been used for fishing purposes. Other artifacts perhaps relatedto the use of nets are a possible pumice net float from the period of Temple B, Phases 2 and3 (Blitzer 1995: 510, M 57, pl. 8.81, as possibly Minoan), and a possible net mender found ina second-century-B.C. context south of Temple C (see Schwab, Chap. 5, Section 10, 1, Pls. 5.48,5.49).

Although no direct evidence of traps was found at Kommos, they are specifically mentionedby ancient authors as being used to catch Diplodus sargus/vulgaris, Labridae, and Sparisomacretense, all found at the site.

Fish in Classical Cult and Ritual

I N T R O D U C T I O N

The sacrifice of eels to Boeotian gods and of tunny to Poseidon, and the dedication of bronzebulls at Delphi and Olympia by the Kerkyreans in gratitude for an immense catch of tunny,are well-known examples of fish and fishing in Classical cult and ritual. There is, however,much more evidence, both literary and artifactual, that provides a cultural framework withwhich the fish remains excavated from sanctuaries at Kommos and elsewhere can be evaluated.A review of the evidence that has as its goals an understanding of fish and fishing in Classicalcult and ritual generally, and of the relationship of the Kommos fish remains to sanctuaryactivity in particular, will necessarily pose the following questions: Who would participateand why? What actions involving fish or fishing would be performed and to whom (whichdeity) would they be addressed? and What archaeological correlates would such behaviorleave behind?

L I T E R A R Y A N D A R T I F A C T U A L E V I D E N C E

The literary evidence for fish in Greek cult comes from the works of individual Greek andRoman authors, that is, compendia such as Athenaeus’s Deipnosophists and the Greek Anthol-ogy, and inscriptions. These sources describe the offering of fish to certain deities; otherdedications, such as fishing gear; associations between particular deities and fish; and, insome cases, prohibitions on fish consumption. Artifactual evidence includes fishing gear andother dedications, such as images of fish, recovered at known sanctuary sites.


Although it could be set forth by grouping all examples of offerings, dedications, or deity-fish affinities, most of the evidence is linked to specific deities and can be convenientlyorganized in that fashion. By examining the full complement of literary and artifactual datafor each deity, one can develop a sense not just of the ways in which fish were part of cultand ritual but also to which deities both the fish and the fishermen were most closely tied. Ofthe various literary sources cited below, the Greek Anthology has been somewhat overlooked inrecent discussions of fish and fishing in the Classical world. E. Bevan (1986: 133) states thatArtemis is the only deity mentioned in the anthology’s dedicatory epigrams as a recipient ofreal fish. There are, however, more instances of fish offerings in the hortatory and admonitoryepigrams (e.g., three cases in which Priapos encourages worshippers to offer him fish). Further-more, there are several instances in the epigrams in which fishermen make dedications otherthan fish. Because these are offerings that fishermen might have made at the Kommos sanctu-ary, they are all included. The evidence for dedications of fish representations presented hereis derived from Bevan (1986: 133), who catalogued about 50 fish representations known fromsanctuaries of the twelve Olympian deities.5

AphroditeGilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) were sacred to Aphrodite (D. W. Thompson 1947: 293–94),and Plutarch (Whether Land or Sea Animals Are Cleverer 35) says Aphrodite, born out of the sea,frowned upon the consumption of sea creatures (Simoons 1984: 276). Nevertheless, devotees ofAphrodite, to whom Astarte was assimilated, ate fish on her holy day in an effort to sharein her fecundity (Dunnigan 1987: 346; Simoons 1984: 206–7, n. 107).

ApolloThe kitharos, presumably a flatfish (Pleuronectoidei), was sacred to Apollo (Athenaeus, Deipno-sophists 306A; D. W. Thompson 1947: 114), and the behavior of an unidentified species, fedby the god’s priests at a temple in Lycia, was read as an omen (Aelian, On Animals XII.1;Bevan 1986: 132; D. W. Thompson 1947: 188). In the Greek Anthology, Damis, a fisherman,offers Phoebus a trumpet shell and asks for death without disease (VI.230).

ArtemisArtemidorus (Oneirocriticon II.35) records that Artemis was helpful to fishers, and her epithetsLimantis and Limnaia relate her to pools and lakes, and Limenitis to harbors (Bevan 1986:131, n. 4). Furthermore, Artemis assimilated Diktynna, a similar Cretan divinity who, fleeingMinos’s unwanted attentions, jumped into the sea and was hauled out in the nets of fishermen(Bevan 1986: 131; H. J. Rose 1959: 117–18). In the Greek Anthology (VI.105), Menis, a netfisher, offers Artemis Limenitis a grilled red mullet (Mullus), a wrasse (Labridae), a cup ofwine, and bread, asking in return that she grant full nets. (The name phykis, which the author


of the Loeb edition translates as hake [Merluccius merluccius], is the same he translated aslemon sole [Microstomus kitt] in V.185; D. W. Thompson [1947: 278] identifies it as a wrasse.)

At least eight seventh-century-B.C. lead fish were found at the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthiabeside the Eurotas River in Sparta, along with several eighth–seventh-century ivory animalswith fish in intaglio on their bases, and an ivory plaque showing a ship with a man linefishing from its prow and three fish swimming beneath it (Bevan 1986: 135). A limestonecarving of ca. 600 B.C. from the sanctuary, not necessarily a dedication, depicts a female witha fish tail. Pausanias may have recorded a similar depiction of Artemis at the Sanctuary ofEurynome, located at the confluence of two rivers near Phigalia in Arkadia (Description ofGreece VIII.41.4–6; Radcliffe 1974: 126, n. 2). The Phigalians said the wooden cult statue waslike a woman down to the buttocks but like a fish below. Pausanias dismissed their claimthat Eurynome was a title of Artemis, identifying Eurynome, as does Homer (Iliad 18.398–99),as a daughter of Ocean: “There may be something about a fish that suggests a daughter ofOcean who lives with Thetis in the depths of the sea, but by no stretch of reasonable probabilityhas it anything to do with Artemis.” Given Artemis’s friendship to fishermen, her epithets,and assimilation of Diktynna, Bevan (1986: 135–36) believes that Pausanias could have beenwrong about Eurynome, and that the fish-tailed female and the dedications to Artemis Orthiaboth reflect the goddess’s connection with fish and fishing. Diodorus Siculus (V.3.5–6) givesanother link between the goddess and fish, writing that those who caught and ate fish froma fountain in Syracuse sacred to Artemis were severely punished (Bevan 1986: 132; Simoons1994: 276).

AtargatisThe Syrian goddess Atargatis was assimilated to Ishtar, Astarte, and, in Greece, Aphrodite(Simoons 1994: 269, 271). Fish sacred to the goddess lived in a lake near her temple at Hierapolisand in ponds near her temples elsewhere. As punishment for touching the sacred fish, thegoddess was believed to cover the bodies of the sacrilegious with ulcers and tumors; aspenance for eating the sacred fish, a Syrian dressed in rags, covered himself with a sack, andsat in a public highway (Cumont 1956: 40, 117). The mid-second-century-B.C. historian Mnaseasof Patara (Athenaeus, Deipnosophists VIII.346) observed that although ordinary people werebanned from eating fish, they were required to bring them to Atargatis (Simoons 1994: 269–70).W. Burkert (1983: 205) quotes Mnaseas’s description: “Every day the priests bring to thegoddess real fish and set it before her on a table, nicely cooked, both boiled and roasted, andthen the priests of the goddess consume the fish themselves.” The ban on fish consumption,according to Burkert, was not just a simple prohibition because the fish were sacred; rather,he says, “they are holy because they are eaten in a sacred sacrificial meal in the company ofAtargatis.” F. Cumont (1956: 117) states that “At certain mystic repasts, however, the priestsand initiates consumed the forbidden food in the belief that they were absorbing the flesh ofthe divinity herself.” In Greece, devotees of Aphrodite, to whom Astarte was assimilated, ate


fish on Friday, the holy day of the goddess, in an effort to share in her fecundity (Dunnigan1987: 346). At Delos fish consumption was prohibited for only three days prior to participationin cult activities of a Syrian deity, perhaps Atargatis (Simoons 1994: 271). Mnaseas wrote thatdevotees of Atargatis made offerings to her “of fish made of silver or gold.” The goddess’sprotective attitude toward fish and the stock figure of the impoverished fisherman in Classicalliterature come together in a humorous dedicatory epigram in the Greek Anthology (VI.24)in which Heliodorus is able to safely offer his net, a beach seine, to Astarte because it was“worn out in vain.” An inscription records that if any of the sacred fish at the temple of agoddess, possibly Atargatis, in Smyrna, died it was to be burnt on the altar (Bevan 1986: 132,n. 14; Radcliffe 1974: 128, n. 5).

AthenaExcluding the Acropolis and Asea, where Poseidon was also worshipped, four sanctuaries ofAthena yielded fish dedications (Bevan 1986: 134). Proximity to the sea may explain nine fishrepresentations found at the shrine of Athena Lindia on the Rhodian coast, but another factorcould be Athena Lindia’s character as fertility goddess and, with Artemis Orthia and others,as mistress of animals (potnia theron) (Bevan 1986: 135–36). A scarab with a Late Geometric–styleengraving of a large erect fish before which a man stands with his hand raised was found atLindos, and the excavator took the fish to be the object of a cultic act or adoration (Blinkenberg1931: 160; Bevan 1986: 134, n. 20).

BereniceAthenaeus (Deipnosophists VII.284A) quotes a fragment of Berenice by the third-century-B.C.poet Theocritus. In it Theocritus recommends that fishermen seeking full nets should sacrificea leukos fish to “this goddess.” A. Rist (1978: 209) suggests that the goddess referred to is thedeified Berenice, mother of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. The fish is unidentified (Radcliffe 1974:129; D. W. Thompson 1947: 170).

DemeterThe Rheitoi, waters near Eleusis, were sacred to Demeter and Kore, and only the priests wereallowed to take fish from them (Pausanias, Description of Greece I.38.1). Porphyry (On Abstinencefrom Animal Food IV.16) noted that in the Eleusinian Mysteries consumption of fish and certainother foods by initiates was banned (Simoons 1994: 276, n. 161). In a description of these fishmade in the 1830s, they are identified as carp (P. Levi 1971: vol. 1, 106, n. 226). Pausanias,however, says that the Rheitoi “present a stream but no other aspect of a river; the water issea-water,” and the nineteenth-century description says that the “Rheitoi feed the salt-waterlake” from which soldiers from a nearby camp catch fish. The fish are compared to herringin size, are said to have white flesh, and jump. This description, along with the salt water,seems better suited to gray mullet than to carp. The name given for the fish, kephalopoulo,


seems to support this: gray mullet are known today as kephalos, whereas carp are calledkyprinos. Bevan (1986: 137) suggests that a Minoan gem engraved with a fish found at theSanctuary of Demeter at Knossos may have been considered an appropriate offering forDemeter or Persephone in their chthonic aspect.

HekateRed mullet (Mullus) were sacred to Hekate and sacrificed to her (Burkert 1983: 210; D. W.Thompson 1947: 267–68). The link to Hekate, according to Thompson, is the ancient beliefthat red mullet spawned three times each year. These fish, however, were also suitable offeringsto Artemis and Priapos in the Greek Anthology. Hekate was able to grant fisherman greatcatches if they prayed to her and she so desired it (Hesiod, Theogony 440–43; Bevan 1986:131).

HeraThe temenos of Hera Limenia at Perachora produced a large deposit of votive objects as lateas 400 B.C. (Stillwell et al. 1976: 687–88). In addition to the epithet, which relates the goddessto harbors, dedications at Perachora (including a bronze fish spear, two fishhooks, and anArchaic clay boat) and at the Heraion in Samos (including at least 22 Archaic votive woodenships, a stone base for a large ship, and an Archaic bronze plaque recording the dedicationof captured ships to Hera and Poseidon) link Hera to fishing and concerns about the seagenerally (Bevan 1986: 146–47, n. 22).

HeraklesAn inscription from the island of Kos dated 300 B.C. notes that small fish were served at abanquet to Herakles (Dittenberger 1915–24: 1106; Kadletz 1976: 152–55, 297).

HermesEpigrams in the Greek Anthology record the dedication by old men of fishing gear to Hermes.Piso offers his rods with lines, oar, hooks, net “fringed with lead,” weel (trap) float, creels,flint (for striking fire), and anchor (VI.5). An unnamed man gives a fragment of his greatseine, purse seine (not the modern net of this name), weel, weel float, and cane rod withhorsehair line and hooks (VI.23). There are three variants on the offering by Baeto, who givesa net, pair of rods with hooks, weel, float, flint, anchor, and hooks (VI.27); rods, oar, hooks,circular net weighted with lead, weel floats, two creels, flint, and anchor (VI.28); and ananchor, flint, creel, float, hook, oar, nets, and rods (VI.29). Pausanias (Description of GreeceVII.22.4) describes a spring called Hermes’ stream at Pharai in Achaia from which peopletake no fish because they believe them to be dedicated to the god (Bevan 1986: 132; Simoons1994: 276). The association of Hermes and fishermen is undoubtedly behind a vase painting


depicting a man and his youthful son or helper fishing on one side, and on the other theyouth striding past a herm as he carries baskets of fish to market (Radcliffe 1974: 186).

InoThe sister of Dionysos’s mother, Ino, fostered the young god, for which Hera drove her tojump into the sea with Melicertes, Ino’s own son, or, in other accounts, boil him in a cauldronand then jump into the sea with it. Dionysos or Aphrodite pitied them and deified Ino asLeucothea and Melicertes as Palaimon (H. J. Rose 1959: 150–52). The two were sympatheticto humans, and Ino saved Odysseus from drowning after Poseidon’s storm wrecked his boat(Homer, Odyssey V.333–53). In the Greek Anthology, the fisherman Hermonax offers them ascolopendra carcass found while drawing in his net (VI.223). This creature is described as “eightfathoms long” and in another epigram as “thousand footed” (VI.222). W. Paton (1993: 417,n. 1) notes that the name scolopendra is used for a bait worm and suggests that the two epigramsmay be facetious or that the name here means a sea monster.

NymphsCinyras, an old man, offers the Nymphs (unnamed) his cast net in two epigrams in the GreekAnthology (VI.25–6).

PanThe Greek Anthology includes several variants on the epigram of three brothers—a hunter,fisher, and fowler—offering Pan nets and asking that he grant a good catch (VI.11–16, VI.179–87). In another epigram (VI.167) Pan receives a goat, “for thy watchtower by the sea,” as ageneral offering from Cleonicus, a hunter and fisher. Elsewhere, a line fisher named Copasusoffers to Pan a crab as first fruits (VI.196), and Pan is described as a guardian of the havenwho cares sometimes for the weels and “sometimes for the fishers who draw their seine onthis beach” (X.10).

PoseidonThe sacrifice of tunny to Poseidon is well known. Antigonos of Karystos says that at HalaiAixonides in Attica the first tunny of the season to be caught was sacrificed to Poseidon ina rite called the thynnaion (Bevan 1986: 131; Burkert 1983: 208–9; Simoons 1994: 275, n. 157;D. W. Thompson 1947: 86). Afterward the fish was eaten by the priest and distinguishedcitizens in the sanctuary (Burkert 1983: 208). Unnamed fish were offered to Poseidon atLampsakos (Polyaenus, Stratagems 6.24; Kadletz 1978: 304).

In four dedicatory epigrams in the Greek Anthology old men dedicate their fishing gearto Poseidon: Diophantus offers his hook, poles, line, creels, weel, trident, and two oars (VI.4);Amyntichus, in one variation, offers his lead-weighted net and fishing spear (VI.30) and, inanother, his nets edged with lead, oar, spear, weel and floats, anchor, and flint (VI.38); and


Archides offers his anchor, oars, lead net weights, weels, floats, broad-brimmed rainproofhat, and flint (VI.90). Another epigram records the dedication of a ship to Poseidon, but thereis no indication that it is a fishing craft (VI.70).

Pausanias (Description of Greece V.27.9, X.9.2) tells how a bull led herdsmen on Kerkyra tothe shore near which great numbers of tunny were shoaling. Unable to catch the fish, theKerkyreans consulted the oracle at Delphi and were told to sacrifice the bull to Poseidon,after which the tunny were caught. Bronze bulls were dedicated at Delphi and Olympia fromtithes of the catch. Evidence from Delphi (the base on which the bull stood, inscription, letterforms, and the name of the sculptor) confirms the story and places the event in the early fifthcentury B.C. (Habicht 1988: 175–77). Two other ancient accounts involve Poseidon and fishand prayers or offerings. According to Aelian (On Animals XV.6), tunny fishers prayed toPoseidon to keep swordfish and dolphins out of their nets for fear that these might cut orchew through the mesh and thereby release the tunny, but no mention is made of any offeringin thanks for the god’s intervention. In Athenaeus (Deipnosophists VIII.333) there is a description,taken from Poseidonius the Stoic, of an unusual incident that occurred in the second centuryB.C. Tryphon of Apameia’s army, having defeated the forces of Demetrius II Nicator, wasmarching along the coast near Ptolemais in Syria when a vast wave engulfed and drownedit. Demetrius’s soldiers heard of this and came to the site, where they found their enemies’corpses and an abundance of fish, which they carried off. Afterward they sacrificed to Poseidon,but what form the sacrifice took and whether it was for the defeat of Tryphon’s army aloneor also for the fish are not stated.

Various ancient authors attest prohibitions on the capture or consumption of fish sacredto Poseidon. Pausanias (Description of Greece III.21.5) mentions a shrine and statue of Poseidonby a lake at a town called Aigiai near Gythion. The fish from the lake were not caught becauseanyone who disturbed them would be turned into an anglerfish, Lophius piscatorius (P. Levi1971: vol. 1, 78, nn. 206, 207; Bevan 1986: 132). That this fish would be taken as fittingpunishment is somewhat unusual, for although it is ugly, it would never be found in aninland lake. Plutarch (Moralia 730D–E) quotes Nestor as saying that priests of Neptune nevereat fish because they believe both fish and humans originated in water and that Poseidon’spriests at Leptis rejected all seafoods (Bevan 1986: 132; Simoons 1994: 276). Pilot fish (Naucratesductor), thought to be friendly toward mariners, were sacred to Poseidon and the Samothraciangods (Burkert 1983: 210; D. W. Thompson 1947: 208–9). Large Red Sea crabs, of an unidentifiedspecies, were also sacred to Poseidon (D. W. Thompson 1947: 106).

Fish representations occur on some of the 1,500 painted terra-cotta plaques and fragmentsfound at Penteskouphia, 3 km southwest of Ancient Corinth. Several of the plaques havededicatory inscriptions naming Poseidon and bear representations of Poseidon and Amphitrite(Stillwell et al. 1976: 687). The largest number of fish representations known from any sanctuarycome from this site. Bevan (1986: 134, 401) catalogues 12 plaques and fragments, 9 depictingfish, 1 with Poseidon and fish, and 2 with eels.


Potnia Theron

A few representations show fish associated with the mistress of animals: An ivory plaquefrom Izmir shows a goddess holding a deer and bird with three fish beneath; an eighth-century-B.C. Boeotian amphora has a depiction of a winged goddess flanked by beasts of preyand waterfowl, with fish as an embroidered decoration on her skirt; and a Geometric funerarypithos from Knossos has portrayals on each side of a winged potnia theron holding birds andflanked by trees, with fish depicted beneath the handles (Bevan 1986: 136–37; Radcliffe 1974:127).

PriaposProsperous and impoverished fishermen both make offerings to Priapos in the Greek Anthol-ogy. Tunny fishers dedicate a beechwood bowl, stool, and glass wine cups from the profitsof their catch (VI.33), and Paris, whose catches have been so poor he has to eat the lobsterhe caught, dedicates its shell (VI.89). Old fishermen offer their tackle to Priapos: Phintylusgives the remains of his seine, weels, hook attached to horsehair line, trap, long cane rod,and float (VI.192); Dameotas dedicates his sweep net (VI.193). Priapos figures in relation tofishing or offerings of fish in four other epigrams. In one the god declares that he lives on aspur by the beach and swiftly answers calls for help from netsmen and rod-fishers (X.8).Priapos asks in another that fishermen who have caught bogue [Boops boops], parrotfish[Sparisoma cretense], and shad in their nets honor him with first fruits (X.9). The name thrisses,translated here as shad, is taken by D. W. Thompson (1947: 77–79) to be a member of theherring family (Clupeidae), which includes the shad, but is not more closely identified. Intwo epigrams the god requests an offering in return for fair weather: “Only by the altar ofPriapos of the harbor burn a parrot-wrasse or some red bogue-fish” (X.14); “Mariner, roastfirst by his altar to Priapos, the lord of the deep and giver of good havens, a slice of cuttle-fish or of lustred red mullet [Mullus], or a vocal parrot fish, and then go fearlessly on thyvoyage . . .” (X.16). The name teuthidos, translated as cuttlefish, means squid (D. W. Thompson1947: 260–61). The relief carved on a dedicatory inscription to Priapos from a guild of fishermenat Parion shows a fish on an altar (Frisch 1983: 10–14; Purcell 1995: 146–47).

Unnamed DeitiesAgatharchides of Knidos (Athenaeus, Deipnosophists 297D) recorded the sacrifice of eels (An-guilla anguilla) at Copais, which, crowned and sprinkled with meal, were dedicated to thegods. The sacrifice was said to be a long-standing Boeotian tradition (Radcliffe 1974: 215;Simoons 1994: 275; D. W. Thompson 1947: 60, 139). In an epigram in the Greek Anthology(VI.222) “masters of the . . . galleys” offer unnamed gods the rib of a scolopendra. Julian (Hymnto the Mother of the Gods 176B–D) says that offerings of fish were made in some cases (henames no specific deity) but adds that fish are inappropriate for important sacrifices because


they are not kept or bred like domestic animals and they inhabit the depths of the ocean,near the underworld.

F A U N A L E V I D E N C E

Fish remains have been reported from many IA sites in the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean,both as occasional observations in older excavation reports and as a growing number of moresystematic accounts in recent ones. Remains from sanctuaries and tombs, which may representofferings or debris from ritual meals, are discussed here. The following compilation gives anidea of the range of such discoveries, but must be qualified for several reasons: For the olderexcavations it can be assumed that the published material does not represent what was initiallypresent at the site (a considerable amount of which was likely lost through inadequate recoverymethods), context is not tightly controlled for many of the examples, and some of the materialis not fully published. The distinctive teeth and calcified vertebral centra of sharks and raysmay be overrepresented relative to the remains of small bony fish, having been saved aspossible counters or gaming pieces, while the latter were discarded. Such finds of shark andray remains have been gathered by Reese (1984b). They include the sites of the Artemisionat Ephesos (mid seventh century B.C.); Brauron, Sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia (700–500B.C.); Delos, Sanctuary of Foreign Gods; Perachora, Hera Limenia Sanctuary (sixth century);Sukas, Syria (Neo-Phoenician to Late Hellenistic); Rhodes, Kameiros, votive deposit; Rhodes,Lindos (Archaic); Samos, Heraion (fifth century); and Sparta, Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia(seventh century).

Athens, Altar of Aphrodite OuraniaThree fish bones including a small burnt vertebra, possibly of a sea bream (Sparidae), wererecovered from fill inside the altar of Aphrodite Ourania in the Athenian Agora (Reese 1989a:68, pl. 16:c). Because 95% of the mammal remains are calcined (burnt gray, blue-gray, or gray-white), much of the assemblage, including the fish, may represent burnt offerings. The depositis considered to be secondary, probably from dumps in the area and included in the altarwhen it was built about 500 B.C. (Reese 1989a: 63).

Corinth, Demeter and Kore SanctuaryMidway up the north slope of Acrocorinth, the Demeter and Kore Sanctuary was arrangedon three terraces: Dining was restricted to the lowest, sacrifice and dedication of offerings tothe middle, and initiation of some sort in a small rock-cut theater on the upper (Bookidis 1993).There were at least fourteen dining rooms at the end of the sixth century B.C., accommodating atleast 101 people. By the late fifth century there were at least thirty rooms, with couches fora minimum of 200 people. More rooms originally existed in the Archaic period, but they couldnot be fully investigated. Dining was not restricted to the priestly staff but included thecelebrants as well.


Table 6.21. Number of identified specimens (NISP) of faunal remains from 1994Corinth Demeter and Kore Sanctuary excavation. (Data from Bookidis et al. 1999)

Taxa NISP Percentage Burnt

Pig 88 53.7 21 (23.9%)

Sheep/goat 11 6.7 0

Fish 49 29.9 9 (5.5%, from one deposit)

Urchin 8 4.9 0

Rodent 6 —

Reptile 2 —

Marine shell 14 —

An investigation of the kinds of food eaten in dining rooms at the sanctuary was undertakenin 1994, when all levels were dry-sieved, and those deemed significant were sampled andwater-sieved using 3- and 1-mm meshes (Bookidis et al. 1999). Of the 164 identifiable animalremains (Table 6.21), pig remains dominated, with a smaller number of sheep or goat. Remainsof fish and sea urchin were recovered from the water sieve only.

L. Snyder, who analyzed the faunal material, believes that the rodent and reptile remainsrepresent commensal animals or are intrusive; the scarcity and the condition, fragmented anderoded, of the marine shell recovered in 1994 suggests that it is not associated with diningat the site. N. Bookidis (1993: 54) noted the discovery of a shell made of lead (a skeuomorph)and suggested that what little marine shell had been found at the sanctuary representedofferings, not food. Recent examination of shells kept from earlier excavations, however,indicated that was not the case (only 4 of 172 examined had been collected dead, suggestingthe bulk were food debris; Reese, personal communication).

Of the 49 fish bones recovered, 24 are undiagnostic rib and spine fragments. Where identifi-able, the others appear to be from sea bream (Sparidae). Based on the measurable vertebrae,none came from fishes larger than 11–15 cm. Several vertebrae and a premaxilla fragmentcame from the area of a hearth in Building N:21 as well as from the floor above it. Ninevertebrae from this deposit are burnt or possibly burnt. The lack of outward signs of burningon any other fish remains suggests to Snyder that these small fish may have been preparedby boiling or frying, or might even derive from a fish sauce (see Bookidis et al. 1999).

In an attempt to distinguish between remains of food consumed in the dining rooms onthe Lower Terrace and remains of sacrifices (dumped or washed down from the MiddleTerrace or perhaps introduced in fill added to the Lower Terrace during periods of construc-tion), Snyder compared the assemblages from areas closer to the Middle Terrace and furtherfrom it. Although there was no difference in the types of bones or the taxa present in the twoareas, the density was lower (fewer remains in similar amounts of matrix) in the area further


from the Middle Terrace. Snyder suggests that this variance may be related to the erodedand rocky nature of soil in this area—a matter of different preservation rather than differentdeposition.

Interestingly, comparison of remains from floor deposits and fills above floors revealed that67.0% of pig remains came from fill, and 33.6% were found in floor deposits. The reverse wastrue for fish: 35% in fill and 65% in floor deposits. Snyder explains this as the result ofdifferential cleaning: Food debris like small fish bones was incorporated into the floor, butlarger pieces, like pig bones, were removed. Some of the latter, however, may have beenbrought back in construction fill and were thus incorporated into floor deposits.

Snyder (Bookidis et al. 1999) notes that the fish remains from the dining rooms at Corinthdiffer in their greater number and smaller size from those recovered at Demeter sanctuariesat Cyrene, Knossos, and previously at Acrocorinth. In addition to the 1994 material, earlierexcavations in the Demeter and Kore Sanctuary at Corinth produced remains of larger fish,although from cistern deposits much later in date than the 1994 assemblage: a grouper (Epine-phelus sp.) left ceratohyal from a mid-first-century-after-Christ context, and fragments of five,possibly six, vertebrae of meagre (Argyrosomus regius; personal analysis). These finds may,however, simply reflect the employment of water-sieving in the 1994 excavation, ensuringrecovery of small fish remains.

Cyrene, Sanctuary of Demeter and PersephoneTwo fish vertebrae were recovered from the sanctuary, one from a context dating from thelate sixth to the end of the first century B.C. (but with a 1926 coin also), and one from a contextdated 625 B.C.–A.D. 50 (Crabtree and Monge 1990; D. S. Reese, personal communication). Threeshark or ray vertebral centra, interpreted as gaming pieces, amulets, or beads, were also foundat the site (Warden 1990: 66, pl. 52).

Halieis, Sanctuary of Apollo (Underwater)Two fish bones were recovered from different deposits (personal analysis). One is a posttempor-ale from the Middle Room (Unit 25, Tr. N), mixed sixth–fifth century B.C. and Roman; theother is a left premaxilla of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata), from a refuse pit outside thenorth wall of the “Dining Area” (Unit 15, Tr. F), fourth century B.C.

Idean Cave, CreteUnidentified fish remains were recovered during excavations at the Idean Cave, in whichwas a shrine to Zeus (Reese, personal communication).

Kalapodi, Boeotia, Sanctuary of Artemis and ApolloExcavations beginning in 1976 have explored Late Helladic and later levels at the sanctuaryof the ancient city of Hyampolis. A total of 15 fish bones have been recovered, compared


with 12,575 bones of mammals, chiefly of sheep and goat (Stanzel 1991: 142–43, 174–75). Only2 fish bones come from post-Mycenaean contexts, Protogeometric and Archaic or Classical(which is unclear from the text), respectively. The sanctuary is situated near a river; it is notcertain that the fish remains, both of freshwater species, barb (Barbus meridionalis) and rudd(Scardinius erythrophthalmus), are associated with either sacrifice or ritual dining there.

Kition, CyprusA number of fish remains have been recovered from bothroi associated with IA templesexcavated from 1962 onward. These have been identified, along with the marine invertebratesand astragali, by Reese (personal communication). The 23 fish bones are unburnt and includea shark or ray centrum and possible Epinephelus sp. and Thunnus sp. vertebrae from contextsdating from 1050 to 450 B.C. The remains could be debris from ritual or other activitiesassociated with the temples.

Knossos, Crete, Demeter SanctuaryM. Jarman (1973) reports a single large fish bone from the Demeter Sanctuary. There are threeadditional fish bones from Minoan or later levels, including a grouper (Epinephelus sp.) vertebra(personal analysis). Other fish remains from Knossos include two “pierced” shark or rayvertebral centra from EIA burials there (Evely 1996: 636).

Messene, Hero and Demeter SanctuaryG. Nobis (1994; 1997) reports fish remains recovered during excavations from 1992 to 1996(identified by A. von den Driesch). The remains include a vertebral centrum of a shark, tope(Galeorhinus galeus), from an altar of “Classical” date (the city was founded by Epaminondasin 369 B.C.; Nobis 1997: 108); a vertebra of bluefin tunny (Thunnus thynnus) from a third–second-century-B.C. deposit north of the temple of Artemis Orthia; four pharyngeal bones of grouper(Epinephelus sp.) from a second–first-century bath deposit south of the Asklepieion (buildingfill); and a vertebra of amberjack (Seriola dumerili) from a second–first-century-B.C. to A.D. 200deposit at the monumental fountain house at the northwest corner of the agora, north of theAsklepieion (Nobis 1994: 303).

MiletosExcavations near Miletos have yielded faunal assemblages from Kalabak Tepe and ZeytinTepe (Peters 1993; E. Zimmermann 1993). The material from Kalabak is considered to beseventh–fifth-century-B.C. settlement refuse; Zeytin served as a sanctuary where priests madeofferings to Aphrodite on behalf of the residents of Kalabak. Mammal remains are 3,748 of3,765 NISP (sheep/goat 61%, cattle 21.7%, pig 10.3%, and unidentified 5.3%) at Kalabak; otherremains are tortoise (14) and fish (1 sea bass [Dicentrarchus sp.] and 2 gilthead sea bream[Sparus aurata]). Zeytin has a similar preponderance of mammal remains, 6,028 of 6,031 NISP


(sheep/goat 82.5%, cattle 8.7%, and unidentified 8.3%); other remains are 1 bird and 2 fish(an unidentified shark and an unidentified sea bream).

Salamis, CyprusExcavations at Salamis recovered fish remains from Archaic funerary contexts. The eighth–seventh-century-B.C. Tomb 23 at Cellarka, Salamis, produced bones of three fish, one probablya common dentex (Dentex dentex), one probably a sparid, and one Carangidae, possibly horsemackerel (Trachurus sp.) (Greenwood 1970). Tomb 79, ca. 700 B.C., produced seventeen bowlswith remains of annular sea bream (Diplodus annularis), grouper (Epinephelus sp.), and, mostnumerous, Nile catfish (Clarias gariepinus) from the Levant or the Nile (Greenwood and Howes1973): twelve bowls had Clarias only, one bowl had D. annularis only, four bowls had Epinephelusonly, and one bowl had Clarias and Epinephelus. In addition, the fourth-century-B.C. Pyre K(a 65 × 60 cm ashy area, 70 cm deep, between tombs 84 and 71) yielded seashells, part of acuttlebone, sea urchin test fragments, and two fish vertebrae (Karageorghis 1970: 192–93, pl.CXCIII, 14). Although difficult to distinguish on the plate, they appear to be caudal or precaudalvertebrae, possibly Epinephelus. Unlike the Salamis fish remains, two otoliths of drum (Sciaeni-dae) found in a Cypro-Archaic II (ca. 600–475 B.C.) tomb at Amathus were not associated withother fish remains and may have been included as ornaments rather than being debris fromritual dining (Reese 1992c: 127, 132, pl. XXIV, 11). A better parallel for the Salamis remainsmay be the fish remains from Archaic tombs at Palaepaphos-Teratsoudhia, but they have notbeen studied (Croft 1990).

Syme, Crete, Sanctuary of Hermes and AphroditeExcavations at the Middle Minoan to Roman sanctuary at Syme in 1972–77, 1981, and 1983–84(Lembessi 1992b), on the southern flank of Mount Dikte and 8 km from the sea, yielded 6fish bones. Used continuously from at least 1600 B.C. to the third century after Christ, thesanctuary was dedicated to Hermes (attested epigraphically as early as the sixth century B.C.)and Aphrodite (Hellenistic inscriptions). The 146 marine shells found there were mostlycollected dead and were used as personal ornaments (Lembessi and Reese 1986). The fishbones (2 articulare and 4 vertebrae) from the site represent at least four grouper (Epinephelussp.), ranging in total length from ca. 48 to 105 cm (personal analysis). One of the vertebraemay be burnt. As offerings or food, the fish remains reflect a closer link between the sanctuaryand marine resources than is apparent from the shells alone.

TroyN.-G. Gejvall recorded in notes a single unidentified fish bone, since discarded, among thefauna remains from a sanctuary at Troy. The context was trench B-8, 2.95–3.05 m depth, datedto ca. 625–600 B.C. (Gejvall 1939: 4–5; D. S. Reese, personal communication). The sanctuaryhas been identified with the Samothracian gods (C. B. Rose 1998). A single unidentified fish


bone was found in 1994 excavations of the lower sanctuary (Archaic through Hellenistic; Fabis1996). The Samothracian gods, or Cabiri, protected those at sea (Cole 1988a: 901; Hammondand Scullard 1972: 186 [W. K. C. Guthrie]).

C U L T U R A L F R A M E W O R K

The Greeks believed in a reciprocal relationship between humans and the gods in whichprayers, offerings, sacrifices, and the maintenance of sanctuaries were exchanged for divinefavors (Cole 1988a: 887, 890–91; Jameson 1988b: 961–63, 966–69, 975). According to Theophras-tus, people sacrificed to the gods to honor them, to thank them for something in particularor for their favorable disposition, or to ask for something they needed or to avert somemisfortune (Porphyry, On Abstinence II.24). Pouring libations, burning incense, and placingfood before a cult image or on an altar were less expensive than sacrifice and were commonways to support prayer. Thank offerings could be made either as first fruits (aparchai), partof whatever the gods had granted, or as a tithe (dekate), if the bounty was converted intovaluable objects. Personal equipment, from the weapons and armor of soldiers to the spindlesand loomweights of women, constituted a distinct class of object offerings. Gifts could beconsecrated by deposition in a sacred place or through conspicuous destruction, usuallyburning. Ritual dining involved both fellowship among worshippers and communion withthe gods, for whom a place might be set. Meat from sacrifices was served and consumed bydevotees and priests, who might receive the gods’ portion. Feasts with the gods as participants(theoxenia) were distinct from sacrifices where part of the victim was burnt on the altar, butthe boundary became less clear over time (see Jameson 1988b: 966–67, 972; also Burkert 1983:205 and 1987; Cumont 1956: 117; Ottosson 1987).

The literary, archaeological, and faunal evidence suggest that the behavior of fishermen,and fish- or fishing-related ritual activities conformed to this general pattern. Actual sacrificesof fish by communities are recorded for Poseidon (tunny), where the sacrifice was an offeringof first fruits, and for unnamed Boeotian gods (eels). Fish offerings by individuals are recordedfor Artemis, Berenice, and Priapos (and possibly Hekate) in support of prayers for, or inthanks for, full nets or fair weather. Apollo, Ino, and Pan received offerings of other marinecreatures as first fruits or, in one case, to support a prayer for death without disease. Panalso received a goat from a hunter-fisher as a general thank offering. Not all offerings wereof fish or other creatures. Representations of fish were dedicated at sanctuaries of Poseidon,Artemis, and Athena (especially Athena Lindia), and elsewhere. Artemis received, in supportof a prayer for full nets, not only fish but also a cup of wine and bread. Perhaps this was anoffering of fish and bread on an altar in combination with a libation. In two instances profitsfrom catches of tunny were converted into objects of value that were dedicated as tithes: theostentatious bronze bulls placed by the Kerkyreans at Delphi and Olympia, and a beechwoodbowl, stool, and glass wine cups given to Priapos. Fishing gear, generally donated by oldmen retiring from fishing, was given to many deities: Atargatis (in a humorous epigram),


Hermes, the Nymphs, Poseidon, and Priapos. Pan received a net in support of a prayer fora good catch. Fishing gear, presumably from such dedications, has been found at the Sanctuaryof Hera Limenia at Perachora; bronze net menders like the one from a second-century-B.C.level at Kommos have been found at other sanctuaries in the Aegean as well as in tombs(J. W. Shaw 1981a: 229, n. 64; a review of all such finds, not undertaken for this report, wouldbe of great interest).

Literary references indicate that fish offerings were cooked. Artemis received grilled fish,and Priapos asked for fish burned or roasted, apparently whole in one instance and a portionin another. In ritual dining, the priest and elite citizens who ate tunny sacrificed to Poseidonundoubtedly cooked it (presumably after cutting it up), and this was probably the fate of theBoeotian eels. The priests of Atargatis ate their fish boiled and roasted. There is no record ofhow fish eaten at banquets honoring Herakles were prepared. Not all fish consumed in ritualbanquets were sacrifices or offerings. Menander contrasts a lavish feast including eels, alongwith wine, cheese, honey, and flute-girls with what the god received—a relatively inexpensivesheep (Jameson 1988: 976; Athenaeus, Deipnosophists VIII.364D). Fish, perhaps boiled or friedor in a sauce, were undoubtedly on the menu of ritual dining at the Sanctuary of Demeterand Kore at Corinth. Funerary feasts at Salamis, and possibly elsewhere on Cyprus, includedfish. At Salamis the fish were served in bowls, but how they were prepared is not consideredin the site report, and the presence or absence of burning is not mentioned. Fish remains fromthe altar of Aphrodite Ourania in the Athenian Agora and from near the dining area of theSanctuary of Apollo at Halieis may have been the remains of burnt offerings or ritual dining,although it is not certain in either case. Additional fish remains have been found at sanctuariesof many deities (Aphrodite at Miletos and Syme; Apollo and Artemis at Kalapodi; Hermesat Syme; Demeter and Kore at Cyrene, Knossos, and possibly Messene; and the Samothraciangods at Troy) and near the sanctuaries of others (Artemis Orthia at Messene, Asklepios atMessene, and Zeus at the Idean Cave). Whether these represent sacrifices, offerings, or remainsof ritual meals, or are unrelated to the sanctuaries (e.g., brought in with building fill) is notascertainable.

Deities who received fish or fishing-related offerings included those with a special associationwith fishermen or the sea, those well disposed toward appeals for help from humans, andthose who had sanctuaries near the sea that were, therefore, patronized by fishermen. Theliterary and artifactual evidence overlap considerably, but there are differences. Priapos ismentioned most often in the Greek Anthology in association with offerings of fish or fishinggear, followed by Pan, Hermes, and Poseidon (contra Radcliffe 1974: 126, n. 1, who saysHermes is mentioned most often, followed by Priapos). Hermes was the father of both Pan,whose mother was in some accounts the nymph Kallisto, and Priapos, whose mother wasAphrodite (H. J. Rose 1959: 149, 167–68, 175). All three—Hermes, Pan, and Priapos—had someprotective or luck-bringing capacity and were generally well disposed toward humankind.Poseidon’s appearance is self-explanatory. The distribution of fish representations dedicated


at sanctuaries tells a somewhat different story. Bevan found that of about 50 fish representationsknown from sanctuaries of the twelve Olympian deities, at least half were dedicated insanctuaries of Poseidon or Artemis. These dedications, 15 from Poseidon sanctuaries and atleast 8 from the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, were representations of fish. The 22–24 fishknown from sanctuaries of Athena, Zeus, Hera, and Demeter take the form of decorativemotifs on other objects. Although Poseidon and Artemis received such offerings most often,the proximity of certain sanctuaries, such as that of Athena Lindia, to the sea made otherdeities appropriate recipients as well (Bevan 1986: 133, 136, 144). In addition to these deities,there are many others for whom there is evidence of a tie to fishermen, fishing, or fish:Aphrodite, Asklepios(?), Atargatis, Berenice, Hekate, Herakles, Ino, Nymphs, Potnia theron(?),Samothracian gods, Boeotian gods, and Zeus(?).

The relations between fish and fishing, various Classical deities, and ritual practices canbe viewed in terms of human behaviors and their archaeological correlates. Offerings ofrepresentations of fish and deities (in association with fish or in the guise of half-fish), fishinggear, and real fish are all attested in ancient literary sources. Their likely archaeologicalcorrelates—depictions of fish and divinities, tackle, and fish remains—have all been foundat sanctuary sites. How fish were treated in ritual could be reflected in their remains. Thosesacrificed then butchered, cooked, and consumed would probably be indistinguishable fromeveryday food remains. This is also true of fish prepared for eating in ritual meals at sanctuaries.Remains of burnt offerings, that is, fish actually placed in fires on altars, however, might havea greater extent and degree of burning than remains of fish cooked for consumption. Thiswould certainly be the case for remains of fish that were immolated, for example, sacred fishat Smyrna that died (see above) or, further afield, fish from the Tiber offered to Volcanus ina holocaust sacrifice during the Volcanalia (Hammond and Scullard 1972: 1130–31 [H. J. Rose]).Perhaps the single burnt fish bone from the fill within the Aphrodite Ourania altar in theAthenian Agora is from a burnt offering at an earlier altar, but this is by no means certain.At the Demeter and Kore Sanctuary at Corinth and in tombs at Salamis there is evidence offish in ritual and funerary dining. For the other sanctuaries, dining is a possibility and sacrificecannot be ruled out, but more evidence and better descriptions of the contexts are requiredbefore even the association of the remains with the sanctuary can be treated as more thancoincidental.

Considering the sanctuary as an archaeological landscape, one can suggest where fishremains and related offerings might be found. Within a sanctuary (temenos) was the temple(naos), which housed the image of the deity and nonperishable offerings. The temple was thegod’s residence and was usually oriented facing east, the main altar aligned with the entrance.The altar could be elaborate or simple, in the form of a hearth. Large sanctuaries would haveadditional buildings for the display of votive offerings or for dining (Cole 1988b: 888; Jameson1988b: 968). Primary deposits of fish remains in sanctuaries might be expected around altars(from offerings) and in cooking and dining facilities (from ritual meals); secondary deposits


might include dumps where offerings were buried or dining refuse was disposed of. Thiswould also be true of nonfish animal offerings made by fishermen, such as marine invertebratesand goats, both recorded in literary sources. Other offerings—objects, fishing gear, and fishrepresentations—might be found in particular buildings or votive dumps.

Topography might affect where remains or artifacts are found. For example, redepositionfrom erosion or slumping might be an important factor at a site like the Sanctuary of Demeterand Kore at Corinth, where different activities were restricted to different terraces, but not ata relatively flat site such as the IA sanctuary at Kommos. More than 60% of the Kommos fishremains are from within the three successive Temples A–C. An additional 23% are from thedouble hearth in the courtyard near the entrance to Temple B, Phase 2, with which it is contempo-rary. This suggests their sacrificial origin. By contrast, fish remains are scarce in the othersanctuary buildings, Room A1 (the putative dining room), and Building B (residence and storage).They are equally scarce outside the sanctuary, e.g., at Archaic Building Q (apparently a storagefacility) south of the sanctuary and at Hellenistic Building E (a residence) east of it.

The Iron Age Kommos Fish Assemblage and Cult and Ritual

Evidence linking fish, fishing, and ritual at the Kommos IA sanctuary exists in the form ofburnt fish remains and fishing gear (hooks, net weights, and a net mender) that might havebeen offerings. In extent and degree of burning and in context, the fish remains from theperiod of Kommos Temple B appear to be from whole fish, or possibly from whole fish andadditional fish heads, which were burnt on hearths or altars in or just outside the temple.The burnt fish vertebra from the altar of Aphrodite Ourania in the Athenian Agora may bea similar case. The fish remains from these areas contrast with those from the Sanctuary ofDemeter and Kore at Corinth, which are debris from ritual meals, with little burning andfound in contexts related to dining.

One can easily imagine local fishermen praying at the Kommos sanctuary, seeking largecatches or other aid, and offering fish and fishing gear in support of their prayers, a scenarioin accord with the evidence from the site and literary sources. Community sacrifice of fish atKommos seems less likely than burnt offerings by individuals, but fish may well have beenconsumed in ritual meals at the sanctuary in addition to being burnt on the altars. Thankofferings may also have been made at the sanctuary. If given as first fruits they would addto the site’s fish remains, but if given as a sacrifice of another animal or a tithe in kind theywould be impossible to pick out in the Kommos fauna or artifactual assemblages. There istoo little evidence to determine if the Temple A fish remains are the result of such activities.The fish remains from Temple C resemble the fish remains from Minoan Kommos, which areassumed to be the discarded food debris of a settlement. The practice of burnt offerings offish during Temple B may not have continued in the period of Temple C. The only burnt fishremains in a primary context from that period are five burnt fish vertebrae from an interior


hearth in Temple C; none are associated with exterior altars. Remains from the Temple Cperiod could, however, be from ritual dining.

The fish remains from the Kommos sanctuary can be compared with fish remains fromother ritual contexts (sanctuary or funerary) and with fish associated with divinities andsacrifice in the ancient literature (excluding simple fish-divinity affinities, such as betweenAphrodite and gilthead, Sparus aurata; Table 6.22).

Kommos provides evidence for the offering of an elasmobranch (shark or ray), grouper(Epinephelus sp.), pandora (Pagellus erythrinus), white or common two-banded sea bream (Diplo-dus sargus/vulgaris), and axillary wrasse (Symphodus mediterraneus). Of these, pandora, whiteor common two-banded sea bream, and axillary wrasse are not known from other ritualcontexts or literary sources. Four fish attested as offerings in ancient literary sources are,however, entirely unknown in the Kommos IA fish assemblage: a herring relative (Clupeidae),red mullet (Mullus), bogue (Boops boops), and bluefin tunny (Thunnus thynnus). Other ritualcontexts have also produced fish not present in the IA Kommos fish remains: a jack or scad(Carangidae), meagre (Argyrosomus regius), gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata), and, again,bluefin tunny. Taken together the archaeological and literary evidence shows that a largenumber of species were used as offerings.

Comparison with the fish from Minoan Kommos, which are settlement rather than sanctuarydebris, may help determine whether the fish taxa from the Temple B burnt assemblages arein any way special. Four of the five taxa from the Temple B burnt fish assemblages (shark orray, grouper, pandora, and white or common two-banded sea bream) are also in the Minoanassemblage. Perhaps the offerings consisted simply of fish common to the area. Shore rockling(Gaidropsaurus mediterraneus), although present in both Minoan and IA Kommos, is not abun-dant in either assemblage, perhaps explaining its absence from the burnt Temple B assemblages.Other scarce fish at Kommos that are known only from later or unburnt contexts and areattested either in ritual contexts elsewhere, or as offerings in ancient sources, include eel(Anguilla anguilla) and the imported Nile catfish (Clarias gariepinus). The absence of parrotfish(Sparisoma cretense) from the Temple B fish remains is notable, since the fish is present in bothMinoan and later IA contexts and is also attested as an offering.

Although the literary, artifactual, and faunal evidence point to deities likely to receive fishor fishing-related offerings, a direct linkage between the burnt fish remains of Temple B anda particular deity (e.g., if it’s tunny, it must be Poseidon) is not possible at Kommos, nor isit ever likely to be so at such a sanctuary. The literary and artifactual evidence suggest thatfishermen were among the patrons of sanctuaries located near the coast and that a variety ofdeities received offerings from them. Ancient sources, especially the epigrams of the GreekAnthology, and the fish remains from Kommos indicate that a token of the catch (not, appar-ently, selected species only) or fishing gear could be an appropriate offering at a smallsanctuary. The evidence at Kommos bearing on the identity of the deity or deities worshipedthere suggests a triad (perhaps Apollo, Leto, and Artemis) in the Temple B period, with later


Table 6.22. Fish taxa from Iron Age and Minoan Kommos, ritual contexts at other sites,and in references to fish offerings in ancient authors.

Taxon Iron Age Minoan Ritual Contexts Written Sources

Barbus meridionalis − − ? −

Scardinius erythrophthalmus − ? −

Elasmobranch + − + −

Galeorhinus galeus − + + −

Squatina squatina + − − −

Clupeidae, indet. sp. − − − +

Anguilla anguilla + − − +

Gymnothorax unicolor + − − −

Conger conger + − − −

Belone belone + − − −

Clarias gariepinus + − + −

Gaidropsaurus mediterraneus + + − −

Epinephelus sp. + + + −

Dicentrarchus sp. + − − −

Apogon imberbis − + − −

Carangidae, indet. sp. − − + −

Argyrosomus regius − − + −

Sciaena umbra + − − −

Umbrina cirrosa + − − −

Mullus sp. − − − +

Sparidae, indet. sp. − − + −

Boops boops − − − +

Diplodus annularis − − + −

Diplodus sargus/vulgaris + + − −

Oblada melanura + − − −

Pagellus erythrinus + + − −

Pagrus pagrus + + − −

Sparus aurata − − + −

Spicara sp. + − − −

Labridae, indet. sp. − − + −

Coris julis − + − −

Labrus merula + − − −

Symphodus mediterraneus + − − −

Sparisoma cretense + + − +

Thunnus thynnus − + + +


Table 6.22. (Continued)

Taxon Iron Age Minoan Ritual Contexts Written Sources

Sphyraena sphyraena − + − −

Mugilidae, indet. sp. + − − −

Solea solea + − − −

Leukos (unid. sp.) − − − +

+ = present− = absent? = possibleindet. = indeterminateunid. = unidentifiable

inscriptions and depictions indicating Zeus, Poseidon, and Pan (cf. J. W. Shaw, Chap. 8, Section2, “Ascription of the Temples”). For the Temple B period, Artemis would be an appropriaterecipient of fish, to judge from the literary and artifactual evidence. In the Temple C period,Pan and Poseidon were likely candidates to receive fish offerings. If the remains of that periodare ritual dining debris only, then virtually any deity would be as likely.

Conclusions

The fish species present at Kommos could all have been caught in the waters off the site oralong the coast to the north or south (the Nile catfish Clarias gariepinus which came to the sitefrom the Levant, Egypt, or North Africa, is an exception). Although most of the fish couldbe caught year-round, there are two periods (from the end of winter to spring and from fallto early winter) in which, following modern fisheries statistics, catches would have beenlarger. Fishing could have been done by specialists, as attested in ancient sources, as well asby people engaged primarily in farming or other activities who occasionally fished as theirschedules allowed and needs dictated. For almost all the species small-scale gear, includinghook and line (or multiple hooks on long lines), a variety of nets, and traps in some fisheries,accounts for the bulk of the catch today. Ancient sources, for example, Oppian and the GreekAnthology, record the existence of such tackle in antiquity, and there is direct evidence of itat Kommos in the form of hooks and lead weights that could be crimped on lines or overthe edges of nets (such as simple seines or circular cast nets). Other capture methods thatmight well have been used, basketwork traps, for example, would not normally be preserved.The overall impression is of a fishery focused on coastal fish found throughout the Mediterra-nean and Aegean along with some that are locally common (e.g., parrotfish).6

The relatively low number of fish remains compared with those of other animals at Kommosand the small size of the individual fish relative to domestic mammals suggest that fish played

Tab

le6.

23.C

onte

xtd

escr

ipti

ons

for

fish

rem

ains

from

Iron

Age

Kom

mos

.T

hefi

shre

mai

nsfr

omea

chco

ntex

tar

epr

esen

ted

here

insu

mm

ary

form

.Con

text

nam

ean

dd

esig

nati

onar

egi

ven

(wat

er-s

ieve

dco

ntex

tsar

ein

dic

ated

asw

s),f

ollo

wed

bynu

mbe

rof

rem

ains

,num

ber

burn

t,an

dw

eigh

t.U

nid

enti

fied

frag

men

tsar

elis

ted

next

,cat

egor

ized

ascr

ania

l/fa

cial

,axi

al(p

tery

giop

hore

san

dsp

ines

from

fins

and

vert

ebra

e),a

ndve

rteb

ral.

Ver

tebr

aefo

llow

;tho

seof

smal

lfis

h(p

red

omin

antl

yfr

omth

efa

mily

Spar

idae

)so

rted

acco

rdin

gto

anat

omic

alpo

siti

onan

dsi

zecl

ass

(in

5-m

min

crem

ents

).Id

enti

fied

rem

ains

are

liste

dla

st,w

ith

otol

iths

and

prem

axill

ary

and

den

tary

bone

sid

enti

fied

toge

nus

orsp

ecie

sw

here

poss

ible

.Fin

ds

offi

shho

oks

orpo

ssib

lene

tw

eigh

tsar

eno

ted

atth

een

dof

each

entr

y.C

onte

xts

are

dis

cret

ed

epos

its,

unre

late

dto

the

amou

ntof

soil

mat

rix.

The

amou

ntof

fish

rem

ains

inan

ygi

ven

cont

ext

isno

tne

cess

arily

asi

mpl

ere

flec

tion

ofth

evo

lum

eof

the

mat

rix

asop

pose

dto

the

den

sity

ofbo

nein

the

mat

rix.

Cer

tain

cont

exts

,cha

ract

eriz

edby

larg

equ

anti

ties

ofm

arin

esh

ell,

wer

ed

esig

nate

d“m

arin

em

eal.”

Som

eof

thes

eal

soco

ntai

ned

fish

rem

ains

and

are

liste

dbe

low

.It

shou

ldbe

und

erst

ood

that

the

des

igna

tion

doe

sno

tim

ply

that

thes

ed

epos

its

are

the

deb

ris

from

asi

ngle

mea

l.

Num

ber

Num

ber

ofW

eigh

tPe

riod

and

Loc

atio

nT

renc

h/Pa

ilof

Bon

esB

urnt

Bon

esof

Bon

esFr

agm

ents

Com

men

ts

Tem

ple

A

Floo

rs33

C/

81–8

8,w

s95

11.

6g

Uni

den

tifi

ed40

cran

ial/

faci

alfr

agm

ents

33ax

ial

(10

dor

sal,

2pt

eryg

ioph

ore)

2ve

rteb

ral

Ver

tebr

ae13

(1bu

rnt)

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Proa

tlas

1T

hora

cic

3(1

burn

t)Pr

ecau

dal

3C

aud

al6

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1ri

ght

otol

ith,

spar

id1

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

1ri

ght

den

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s2

quad

rate

s1

hyom

and

ibul

are

1ce

rato

hyal

e

Per

iod

ofT

emp

leA

–Tem

ple

B,P

has

e1

Dep

osit

inso

uth

51A

/35

10

0.4

gV

erte

bra

1m

ediu

m-s

ized

vert

ebra

,pre

sle

ngth

12.9

mm

,M

ugili

dae

(?)

Tem

ple

B,P

has

e1

Hea

rth

133

C/

79,w

s9

00.

4g

Uni

den

tifi

ed1

cran

ial/

faci

alfr

agm

ents

1ax

ial

(dor

sal)

Ver

tebr

ae3

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Cau

dal

3Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

1ri

ght

den

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

1m

axill

a,sp

arid

1vo

mer

,spa

rid

Cou

rt33

C/

60,6

1,w

s42

01.

5g

Uni

den

tifi

ed8

cran

ial/

faci

alfr

agm

ents

18ax

ial

4ve

rteb

ral

Ver

tebr

ae8

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Atl

as1

Cau

dal

25

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1ri

ght

prem

axill

a,D

iplo

dus

sp.

1ri

ght

max

illa,

spar

id1

phar

ynge

al,s

pari

d1

cera

tohy

ale

(?)

Tem

ple

B,P

has

es1

and

2

Floo

rs33

C/

59,7

6,80

,ws

411

2.0

gU

nid

enti

fied

20cr

ania

l/fa

cial

frag

men

ts7

axia

l(2

dor

sals

,1bu

rnt)

Ver

tebr

ae6

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Tho

raci

c1

Cau

dal

5Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

1ri

ght

den

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s1

righ

td

enta

le,2

piec

es,G

ymno

thor

axun

icol

or1

left

den

tale

,Bel

one

belo

ne1

max

illa,

spar

id1

epih

yale

2qu

adra

te

Tab

le6.

23.(

Con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

Num

ber

ofW

eigh

tPe

riod

and

Loc

atio

nT

renc

h/Pa

ilof

Bon

esB

urnt

Bon

esof

Bon

esFr

agm

ents

Com

men

ts

Per

iod

ofT

emp

leB

,Ph

ases

1an

d2

Pit

inea

st58

A/

14,w

s9

10.

5g

Uni

den

tifi

ed3

cran

ial/

faci

alfr

agm

ents

3ax

ial

Ver

tebr

a1

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Cau

dal

1Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

(bur

nt)

1le

ftot

olit

h,sp

arid

Tem

ple

B,P

has

e2

Hea

rth

233

C/

77,7

8,w

s18

338

(tw

o-7.

8g

Uni

den

tifi

ed52

cran

ial/

faci

al(2

preo

perc

ular

e)th

ird

sfr

agm

ents

27ax

ial

(3d

orsa

l,1

fin

ray,

2bu

rnt)

burn

t14

vert

ebra

l(8

burn

t)br

own-

Ver

tebr

ae37

(14

burn

t)0–

5m

m5–

10m

mbl

ack,

one-

thir

dA

tlas

4(4

burn

t)w

hite

)T

hora

cic

5(5

burn

t)1

Prec

aud

al5

(1bu

rnt)

Cau

dal

107

(4bu

rnt)

Unc

erta

in5

(4bu

rnt)

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

11ri

ght

otol

iths

,spa

rid

(5bu

rnt)

8le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(2

burn

t)1

righ

tot

olit

h,D

iplo

dus

sp.

1ri

ght

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus

1le

ftpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s1

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

1le

ftpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

(bur

nt)

1ri

ght

dent

ale,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s1

left

dent

ale,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s(b

urnt

)4

righ

tde

ntal

e,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s(1

burn

t)3

left

den

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

(3bu

rnt)

3m

axill

a,sp

arid

7m

olar

ifor

mte

eth

(1bu

rnt)

3hy

oman

dib

ular

e3

quad

rate

2ce

rato

hyal

e1

arti

cula

re1

oper

cula

re

Low

erhe

arth

/fl

oor

29A

1/85

,87,

ws

253

0.4

gU

nid

enti

fied

10cr

ania

l/fa

cial

arou

ndT

ripi

llar

frag

men

ts6

axia

l(2

dor

sals

,1fr

omm

ediu

mfi

sh)

Shri

ne1

vert

ebra

l(b

urnt

)V

erte

brae

50–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Prec

aud

al1

Cau

dal

22

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1ri

ght

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s2

mol

arif

orm

teet

h(2

burn

t)

Cou

rt42

A/

30,3

1,34

,ws

235

0.6

gU

nid

enti

fied

2cr

ania

l/fa

cial

(1bu

rnt)

frag

men

ts3

axia

lV

erte

brae

20–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Tho

raci

c1

(bur

nt)

Cau

dal

1Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts2

righ

tot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(1

burn

t)1

left

otol

ith,

spar

id(b

urnt

)1

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

smal

lse

rran

id(?

)1

spar

id-l

ike

toot

h(b

urnt

)1

hyom

and

ibul

are

1qu

adra

te

Dou

ble

hear

th47

A/

18,2

4,w

s39

645

(abo

ut6.

5g

Uni

den

tifi

edca

.256

cran

ial/

faci

al(2

.9g,

11bu

rnt)

inco

urt

half

each

frag

men

ts56

axia

l(0

.3g;

14d

orsa

ls,2

dor

sals

and

4ot

h-bu

rnt

blac

ker

sbu

rnt)

and

whi

te)

Ver

tebr

ae45

(10

burn

t)0–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Proa

tlas

2A

tlas

7(3

burn

t)T

hora

cic

11(3

burn

t)Pr

ecau

dal

10(2

burn

t)C

aud

al14

(2bu

rnt)

Unc

erta

in1

Tab

le6.

23.(

Con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

Num

ber

ofW

eigh

tPe

riod

and

Loc

atio

nT

renc

h/Pa

ilof

Bon

esB

urnt

Bon

esof

Bon

esFr

agm

ents

Com

men

ts

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

8ri

ght

otol

iths

,spa

rid

(6bu

rnt)

11le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(6

burn

t)1

left

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus

5ri

ght

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s(2

burn

t)1

left

den

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s2

righ

td

enta

le,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s2

left

den

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

2m

axill

a,sp

arid

4te

eth

(3bu

rnt)

2qu

adra

te(1

burn

t)1

oper

cula

re

Ash

yfi

llea

stof

47A

/26

,ws

392

288

(80%

4.4

gU

nid

enti

fied

ca.1

40cr

ania

l/fa

cial

(ca.

80bu

rnt)

dou

ble

hear

thbu

rnt

frag

men

ts87

axia

l(2

0bu

rnt

dor

sal,

2bu

rnt

pter

ygio

-w

hite

)ph

ores

,and

48ot

her

burn

t)51

vert

ebra

l(5

0bu

rnt)

Ver

tebr

ae74

(71

burn

t)0–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Proa

tlas

1(b

urnt

)1

(bur

nt)

Atl

as14

(14

burn

t)T

hora

cic

12(1

2bu

rnt)

Prec

aud

al13

(12

burn

t)C

aud

al27

(25

burn

t)U

ncer

tain

6(6

burn

t)Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts3

righ

tot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(3

burn

t)8

left

otol

iths

,spa

rid

(8bu

rnt)

1ri

ght

otol

ith

frag

men

t,un

id.(

burn

t)1

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s1

left

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus

(bur

nt)

2ri

ght

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s(1

burn

t)1

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

cf.E

pine

phel

us(b

urnt

)

3d

enta

le(2

righ

tan

d1

left

),sp

arid

(3bu

rnt)

max

illa,

spar

id(3

burn

t)5

spar

idun

iden

tifi

edd

enti

tion

(5bu

rnt)

10m

olar

ifor

mte

eth

(10

burn

t)1

arti

cula

re(b

urnt

)1

quad

rate

(?)

1hy

oman

dib

ular

e

Per

iod

ofT

emp

leB

,Ph

ase

2

Sout

hso

und

ing

36B

/20

,21,

ws

118

17(a

bout

6.4

gU

nid

enti

fied

32cr

ania

l/fa

cial

(1fr

agm

ent

wit

had

heri

ngon

e-ha

lffr

agm

ents

carb

on)

each

11ax

ial

(2d

orsa

l,1

dor

sal

burn

tan

d1

othe

r)bu

rned

8ve

rteb

ral

(1bu

rnt)

blac

kan

dV

erte

brae

27(6

burn

t)0–

5m

m5–

10m

mw

hite

)Pr

oatl

as1

Atl

as2

(1bu

rnt)

Tho

raci

c8

(4bu

rnt)

Prec

aud

al4

Cau

dal

102

(1bu

rnt)

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

10ri

ght

otol

iths

,spa

rid

(3bu

rnt)

16le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(4

burn

t)1

left

otol

ith,

Serr

anid

ae(b

urnt

)1

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s1

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

2ri

ght

prem

axill

a,sp

arid

1ri

ght

den

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s1

left

den

tale

,spa

rid

1m

olar

ifor

mto

oth

1lo

wer

phar

ynge

al,S

ymph

odus

med

iter

rane

us2

max

illa,

smal

lno

nspa

rid

,non

labr

id2

quad

rate

1hy

oman

dib

ular

eT

his

cont

ext

also

yiel

ded

ale

adw

eigh

t(S

chw

ab,C

hap.

5,Se

ctio

n10

,23)

.

Tab

le6.

23.(

Con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

Num

ber

ofW

eigh

tPe

riod

and

Loc

atio

nT

renc

h/Pa

ilof

Bon

esB

urnt

Bon

esof

Bon

esFr

agm

ents

Com

men

ts

Per

iod

ofT

emp

leB

,Ph

ases

1–3

Sout

hso

und

ing,

un-

29A

1/50

,51,

ws

121

0.6

gU

nid

enti

fied

9ax

ial

(1bu

rnt)

der

slab

floo

rof

frag

men

tsT

empl

eC

Ver

tebr

a1

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Cau

dal

1Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

left

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s1

max

illa,

spar

idT

his

cont

ext

also

yiel

ded

aba

rbed

fish

hook

(Blit

zer

1995

:M10

6,51

4,pl

.8.8

5).

Dum

pto

sout

h34

A2/

29,3

3,w

s48

82.

1g

Uni

den

tifi

ed14

cran

ial/

faci

alfr

agm

ents

14ax

ial

(1d

orsa

l,1

pter

ygio

phor

e;3

othe

rsbu

rnt)

1ve

rteb

ral

(bur

nt)

Ver

tebr

ae6

(1bu

rnt)

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Proa

tlas

1(?

)T

hora

cic

1Pr

ecau

dal

1C

aud

al1

2(1

burn

t)Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

(bur

nt)

3le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(2

burn

t)3

righ

td

enta

le,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s2

left

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s2

arti

cula

re1

quad

rate

1ce

rato

hyal

e+

epih

yale

Mar

ine

mea

l#1

43A

/14

,ws

60

0.1

gU

nid

enti

fied

2cr

ania

l/fa

cial

frag

men

ts1

axia

lV

erte

bra

10–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Unc

erta

in1

p/c

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1ri

ght

den

tale

,spa

rid

1d

enti

tion

frag

men

t,sp

arid

Lev

els

tow

est

#137

A/

34,3

833

41.

3g

Uni

den

tifi

ed10

cran

ial/

faci

al(2

burn

t)fr

agm

ents

2ax

ial

2ve

rteb

ral

Ver

tebr

ae6

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Tho

raci

c5

1Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

8le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(1

burn

t)1

left

den

tale

,spa

rid

1un

cert

ain

den

titi

on,s

pari

d1

mol

arif

orm

toot

h(b

urnt

)1

hyom

and

ibul

are

Lev

els

tow

est

#243

A/

451

00.

8g

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1lo

wer

phar

ynge

al,L

abru

sm

erul

a

Tem

ple

B,P

has

es2

and

3

Rit

ual

dep

osit

29A

1/68

,71–

74,7

6,24

81

5.5

gU

nid

enti

fied

114

cran

ial/

faci

al(1

post

tem

pora

le,1

pelv

is)

arou

ndT

ripi

llar

ws

frag

men

ts96

axia

l(1

1d

orsa

ls,4

pter

ygio

phor

es,1

burn

t)Sh

rine

4ve

rteb

ral

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

9ri

ght

otol

iths

,spa

rid

13le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(2

cf.O

blad

am

elan

ura)

1le

ftpr

emax

illa,

Dip

lodu

ssp

.1

unce

rtai

nsp

arid

den

titi

on3

max

illa

(per

haps

4),s

pari

d2

def

init

ean

d3

poss

ible

hyom

and

ibul

are

1op

ercu

lare

Alt

arU

,con

tent

s42

A/

17,2

1,w

s2

00.

5g

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1le

ftd

enta

le,P

.ery

thri

nus

1le

ftpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

Bui

ldin

gQ

,Roo

m64

A2/

76,w

s3

00.

2g

Uni

den

tifi

ed2

cran

ial/

faci

al30

,upp

erfl

oor

frag

men

tsId

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

Bui

ldin

gQ

,Roo

m52

B/

691

00.

4g

Ver

tebr

a1

prec

aud

al,M

ugili

dae

,hd

7.9,

leng

th11

.930

,bel

owfl

oor

Bui

ldin

gQ

,Roo

m60

B/

74,7

6,77

;76,

171

0.5

gU

nid

enti

fied

3cr

ania

l/fa

cial

31,d

ump

onup

per

77,w

sfr

agm

ents

5ax

ial

floo

r

Tab

le6.

23.(

Con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

Num

ber

ofW

eigh

tPe

riod

and

Loc

atio

nT

renc

h/Pa

ilof

Bon

esB

urnt

Bon

esof

Bon

esFr

agm

ents

Com

men

ts

Ver

tebr

ae5

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Prec

aud

al1

Cau

dal

3U

ncer

tain

11

elas

mob

ranc

hce

ntru

m(b

urnt

),hd

4.8,

leng

th2.

5Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

1ri

ght

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s1

oper

cula

re

Bui

ldin

gQ

,Roo

m38

,64

A2/

78,w

s6

10.

2g

Uni

den

tifi

ed3

axia

llo

wer

floo

rfr

agm

ents

2ve

rteb

ral

Ver

tebr

a1

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Cau

dal

1Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

(bur

nt)

1lo

wer

phar

ynge

al,L

abri

dae

,sp.

ind

et.

1vo

mer

Dar

kea

rth

37A

/3,

ws

2616

1.1

gU

nid

enti

fied

7cr

ania

l/fa

cial

(2bu

rnt)

frag

men

ts3

axia

l(2

dor

sal,

1bu

rnt)

7ve

rteb

ral

(7bu

rnt,

perh

aps

asi

ngle

crus

hed

vert

ebra

)V

erte

brae

20–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Proa

tlas

1A

tlas

1(b

urnt

)Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

(bur

nt)

3le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(2

burn

t)1

max

illa,

unid

.fra

gmen

t(b

urnt

)2

mol

arif

orm

teet

h(b

urnt

)

Per

iod

ofT

emp

leB

,Ph

ases

2an

d3

Thr

ee-s

ided

slab

56A

/10

,ws

130

0.1

gU

nid

enti

fied

3cr

ania

l/fa

cial

encl

osur

efr

agm

ents

8ax

ial

(3d

orsa

l)1

vert

ebra

lV

erte

bra

10–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Prec

aud

al1

Con

tent

sof

bow

l50

A/

40,w

s25

00.

2g

Uni

den

tifi

ed17

cran

ial/

faci

al(C

alla

ghan

and

frag

men

ts3

axia

lJo

hnst

onC

hap.

4,3

vert

ebra

lSe

ctio

n1,

316)

Ver

tebr

a1

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Cau

dal

1Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tar

ticu

lare

frag

men

t

Mar

ine

mea

l#2

27B

/3,

ws

51

0.5

gU

nid

enti

fied

1ax

ial

frag

men

tsV

erte

brae

2(1

burn

t)0–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Prec

aud

al1

Cau

dal

1(b

urnt

)Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

left

otol

ith,

spar

id1

left

den

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s

Mar

ine

mea

l#3

27B

/8,

ws

2113

0.4

gU

nid

enti

fied

2cr

ania

l/fa

cial

frag

men

ts2

axia

l(1

burn

t)1

vert

ebra

lV

erte

brae

60–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Atl

as2

(2bu

rnt)

Tho

raci

c2

(2bu

rnt)

Cau

dal

1(b

urnt

)Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

1le

ftot

olit

h,sp

arid

(bur

nt)

1le

ftpr

emax

illa,

spar

id(b

urnt

)2

max

illa,

unid

.fra

gmen

ts(b

urnt

)5

mol

arif

orm

teet

h(4

burn

t)

Tab

le6.

23.(

Con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

Num

ber

ofW

eigh

tPe

riod

and

Loc

atio

nT

renc

h/Pa

ilof

Bon

esB

urnt

Bon

esof

Bon

esFr

agm

ents

Com

men

ts

Mar

ine

mea

l#7

,50

A/

16,w

s4

00.

7g

Ver

tebr

ae4

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

sout

hwes

tC

aud

al4

(3co

ncre

ted

toge

ther

,1is

sam

ety

pe)

Mar

ine

mea

l#8

,50

A/

33,w

s2

10.

1g

Uni

den

tifi

ed1

cran

ial/

faci

also

uthw

est

frag

men

tsV

erte

bra

10–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Atl

as1

(bur

nt)

Mar

ine

mea

l#9

,50

A/

40,w

s25

00.

2g

Uni

den

tifi

ed19

cran

ial/

faci

also

uthw

est

frag

men

ts1

axia

l3

vert

ebra

lV

erte

bra

10–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Cau

dal

1Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

arti

cula

re

Mar

ine

mea

l#1

4,63

A/

24,w

s16

20.

4g

Uni

den

tifi

ed6

cran

ial/

faci

al(1

burn

t)so

uthe

ast

frag

men

ts3

axia

l(1

burn

t)1

vert

ebra

lV

erte

brae

30–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Cau

dal

21

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1le

ftot

olit

h,sp

arid

1le

ftpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

1ri

ght

prem

axill

a,sp

arid

Mar

ine

mea

l#1

5,63

A/

302

00.

9g

Uni

den

tifi

ed1

larg

ecr

ania

l/fa

cial

sout

heas

tfr

agm

ents

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1hy

oman

dib

ular

e

Eas

tof

late

ral

tars

54A

/27

,ws,

59A

/39

21

0.1

gU

nid

enti

fied

1ax

ial

(dor

sal,

burn

t)fr

agm

ents

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1ri

ght

den

tale

,spa

rid

Thi

sar

eaal

soyi

eld

edan

unba

rbed

fish

hook

(Sch

wab

,Cha

p.5,

Sect

ion

10,3

).

Sout

heas

tof

tem

ple

56A

/3,

63A

/21

21

(?)

0.1

gV

erte

bra

10–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Atl

as1

(pos

sibl

ybu

rnt)

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1ri

ght

otol

ith,

spar

idT

his

cont

ext

also

yiel

ded

apo

ssib

lepu

mic

efl

oat

(Blit

zer

1995

:M57

,510

,pl.

8.81

).

Lev

els

tow

est

#137

A/

33a,

ws

592

4.1

gU

nid

enti

fied

6cr

ania

l/fa

cial

frag

men

ts3

axia

l2

vert

ebra

l(1

burn

t)V

erte

brae

17(1

burn

t)0–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Proa

tlas

1A

tlas

1T

hora

cic

4(1

burn

t)Pr

ecau

dal

51

Cau

dal

22

Unc

erta

in1

p/c

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

13ri

ght

otol

iths

,spa

rid

14le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d1

left

prem

axill

a,sp

arid

2d

enta

le(1

righ

tan

d1

left

),sp

arid

1hy

oman

dib

ular

e

Dar

kea

rth

37A

/6,

ws

271

0.5

gU

nid

enti

fied

9cr

ania

l/fa

cial

frag

men

ts5

axia

l(2

dor

sal)

4ve

rteb

ral

(1bu

rnt)

Ver

tebr

ae4

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Proa

tlas

1T

hora

cic

1C

aud

al1

1

Tab

le6.

23.(

Con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

Num

ber

ofW

eigh

tPe

riod

and

Loc

atio

nT

renc

h/Pa

ilof

Bon

esB

urnt

Bon

esof

Bon

esFr

agm

ents

Com

men

ts

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1le

ftot

olit

h,sp

arid

1ri

ght

otol

ith,

cf.O

blad

am

elan

ura

2m

olar

ifor

mte

eth

1ep

ihya

le

Tem

ple

B,P

has

e3

Hea

rth

329

A1/

45,6

7,w

s40

11.

8g

Uni

den

tifi

ed7

cran

ial/

faci

al(1

ofm

ediu

mfi

sh)

frag

men

ts3

axia

l3

vert

ebra

lV

erte

brae

180–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Proa

tlas

1A

tlas

4T

hora

cic

5Pr

ecau

dal

31

Cau

dal

4(1

burn

t)A

ngui

llaan

-3

guill

aca

udal

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1ri

ght

den

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

1m

axill

a,sp

arid

1ar

ticu

lare

1hy

oman

dib

ular

e1

cera

tohy

ale

1ce

rato

hyal

e+

epih

yale

(art

icul

ated

)

Rec

tang

ular

Hea

rth

33C

/68

,70,

ws

428

278

(abo

ut14

.0g

Uni

den

tifi

ed67

cran

ial/

faci

al(1

2bu

rnt)

4(P

ls.6

.8A

,6.8

B)

75%

burn

tfr

agm

ents

37ax

ial

(13

dor

sal,

8bu

rnt,

1ot

her

burn

t)w

hite

)87

vert

ebra

l(8

2bu

rnt)

134

(120

Ver

tebr

aebu

rnt)

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Proa

tlas

31

(2bu

rnt)

Atl

as21

(19

burn

t)T

hora

cic

28(2

6bu

rnt)

Prec

aud

al22

4(2

4bu

rnt)

Cau

dal

3710

(41

burn

t)U

ncer

tain

8(8

burn

t)Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts26

righ

tot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(1

6bu

rnt)

18le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d(1

3bu

rnt)

2ot

olit

hfr

agm

ents

,spa

rid

(2bu

rnt)

1ri

ght

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus

(bur

nt)

2le

ftpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s(1

burn

t)2

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

(2bu

rnt)

2ri

ght

prem

axill

a+

max

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pa

grus

(art

icul

ated

)8

left

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s(6

burn

t)2

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

Dip

lodu

ssp

.1

left

prem

axill

a,D

iplo

dus

sp.(

burn

t)2

righ

td

enta

le,P

.ery

thri

nus

1ri

ght

den

tale

+ar

ticu

lar,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s(a

rtic

u-la

ted

)(P

l.6.

9)2

righ

tden

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

(1bu

rnt)

2le

ftd

enta

le,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s(1

burn

t)1

left

den

tale

,Dip

lodu

ssp

.(bu

rnt)

3ri

ght

den

tale

,spa

rid

(3bu

rnt)

2le

ftd

enta

le,s

pari

d(2

burn

t)4

max

illa,

spar

id(1

burn

t)2

arti

cula

re,s

pari

d(1

burn

t)9

mol

arif

orm

teet

h1

vom

er(b

urnt

)4

quad

rate

(2bu

rnt)

Tab

le6.

23.(

Con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

Num

ber

ofW

eigh

tPe

riod

and

Loc

atio

nT

renc

h/Pa

ilof

Bon

esB

urnt

Bon

esof

Bon

esFr

agm

ents

Com

men

ts

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

4hy

oman

dib

ular

e1

epih

yale

+ce

raot

hyal

e(a

rtic

ulat

ed)

1sc

ale

Low

erfl

oor

33C

/74

,75,

ws

330

1.4

gU

nid

enti

fied

15cr

ania

l/fa

cial

frag

men

ts14

axia

l(1

pter

ygio

phor

e)V

erte

brae

70–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Tho

raci

c1

Prec

aud

al2

Cau

dal

21

(110

–15

mm

)Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

td

enta

le,D

iplo

dus

sp.

1m

axill

a,sp

arid

2te

eth

1vo

mer

2d

erm

albo

nes

(not

Cla

rias

)

Upp

erfl

oor

33C

/57

,58,

ws

580

2.2

gU

nid

enti

fied

25cr

ania

l/fa

cial

frag

men

ts16

axia

l(3

dor

sal)

Ver

tebr

ae6

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Atl

as1

Tho

raci

c1

Prec

aud

al1

1C

aud

al2

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1ri

ght

otol

ith,

spar

id3

left

otol

iths

,spa

rid

1ri

ght

otol

ith,

Dip

lodu

ssp

.1

low

erph

aryn

geal

,Spa

riso

ma

cret

ense

1sp

arid

like

toot

h1

vom

er1

arti

cula

re1

hyom

and

ibul

are

1op

ercu

lare

Gen

eral

uppe

r33

C/

47,4

8,50

–54,

370

614

.8g

Uni

den

tifi

ed15

4cr

ania

l/fa

cial

inte

rior

pails

66,7

1–73

,ws

frag

men

ts96

axia

l(1

3d

orsa

ls,2

pter

ygio

phor

e;3

othe

rsbu

rnt)

16ve

rteb

ral

(1bu

rnt)

Ver

tebr

ae51

(1bu

rnt)

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Proa

tlas

42

Atl

as3

Tho

raci

c10

Prec

aud

al6

Cau

dal

25(1

burn

t)1

Als

oon

eun

id.c

aud

al(0

–5),

not

incl

uded

abov

e1

elas

mob

ranc

hce

ntru

m,h

d6.

8,le

ngth

8.1

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

5ri

ght

otol

iths

,spa

rid

(1bu

rnt)

4le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d1

righ

tot

olit

h,D

iplo

dus

sp.

1le

ftot

olit

h,O

blad

am

elan

ura

5ri

ght

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus

3le

ftpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s3

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

1le

ftpr

emax

illa,

Dip

lodu

ssp

.1

righ

tpr

emax

illa,

spar

id3

righ

td

enta

le,P

.ery

thri

nus

1le

ftd

enta

le,P

.ery

thri

nus

2ri

ght

den

tale

,P.e

ryth

rinu

s/P

.pag

rus

1le

ftd

enta

le,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s6

max

illa,

spar

id1

spar

id-l

ike

toot

h1

toot

h,Sq

uati

nasq

uati

na1

phar

ynge

al,s

pari

d(?

)1

uppe

rph

aryn

geal

,Spa

riso

ma

cret

ense

1lo

wer

phar

ynge

al,S

.cre

tens

e1

quad

rate

1op

ercu

lare

3ar

ticu

lare

4hy

oman

dib

ular

e(1

S.cr

eten

se)

Thi

sco

ntex

tyi

eld

eda

lead

wei

ght

(Sch

wab

,C

hap.

5,Se

ctio

n10

,32)

Tab

le6.

23.(

Con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

Num

ber

ofW

eigh

tPe

riod

and

Loc

atio

nT

renc

h/Pa

ilof

Bon

esB

urnt

Bon

esof

Bon

esFr

agm

ents

Com

men

ts

Per

iod

ofT

emp

leB

,Ph

ase

3

Red

mat

eria

l,65

A4/

87,w

s1

00.

1g

Ver

tebr

a1

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Arc

haic

Cau

dal

1

Wes

tern

area

#268

A/

21,2

52

10.

1g

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

2ri

ght

otol

iths

,spa

rid

(1bu

rnt)

Tem

ple

C

Tem

ple

C,a

bove

29A

1/12

–14,

16–1

9,47

50

28.0

gU

nid

enti

fied

105

cran

ial/

faci

al(2

.5g,

10of

med

ium

fish

)an

don

slab

floo

r21

,24,

30–3

2,36

,37,

frag

men

ts13

3ax

ial

(3jo

in,o

fm

ediu

mfi

sh,2

0d

orsa

l)w

s35

vert

ebra

lV

erte

brae

115

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Proa

tlas

1A

tlas

7T

hora

cic

4Pr

ecau

dal

172

Cau

dal

(463

710

–15

mm

)U

ncer

tain

102

larg

eve

rteb

rae,

cf.S

erra

nid

ae:t

hora

cic,

hd20

.2,l

engt

h17

.7;c

aud

al,h

d(p

oste

rior

)17

.3,

leng

th19

.02

vert

ebra

e,1

def

init

ean

d1

poss

ible

,Con

ger

cong

erId

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,G

aidr

opsa

urus

med

iter

rane

us1

righ

tot

olit

h,Sc

iaen

aum

bra

1le

ftot

olit

h,U

mbr

ina

ciro

ssa

18ri

ght

otol

iths

,spa

rid

16le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d3

otol

iths

(1ri

ght,

2le

ft),

Obl

ada

mel

anur

a3

otol

iths

(1ri

ght,

2le

ft),

Spic

ara

sp.

1ri

ght

otol

ith,

Sole

aso

lea

5ot

olit

hfr

agm

ents

3ri

ght

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s1

left

prem

axill

a,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s1

left

prem

axill

a,D

iplo

dus

sp.

1le

ftd

enta

le,P

.ery

thri

nus

1le

ftd

enta

le,P

.ery

thri

nus/

P.p

agru

s1

left

den

tale

,Dip

lodu

ssp

.1

left

prem

axill

a,cf

.Epi

neph

elus

1ri

ght

den

tale

,Dic

entr

arch

ussp

.1

vom

er,G

ymno

thor

axun

icol

or1

vom

er,u

nid

.3

den

titi

onfr

agm

ents

,unc

erta

in5

arti

cula

re6

quad

rate

2ce

rato

hyal

ean

d1

epih

yale

3pe

ctor

alsp

ine

frag

men

ts,C

lari

asga

riep

inus

(Pl.

6.7)

3te

eth

Thi

sco

ntex

tyi

eld

eda

lead

wei

ght

(Sch

wab

,C

hap.

5,Se

ctio

n10

,22)

.

Tem

ple

C,c

entr

al29

A1/

35,4

6A/

1,12

00.

5g

Uni

den

tifi

ed5

cran

ial/

faci

alre

ctan

gula

rhe

arth

ws,

mos

tfr

om35

frag

men

ts1

vert

ebra

lV

erte

brae

30–

5m

m5–

10m

m

Atl

as1

Tho

raci

c2

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

1le

ftot

olit

h,sp

arid

1m

olar

ifor

mto

oth

1qu

adra

te

Tem

ple

C,b

elow

re-

29A

1/22

,ws

40

0.9

gU

nid

enti

fied

2ax

ial

(1a

larg

efi

shd

orsa

lor

pect

oral

)us

edM

inoa

nst

one

frag

men

tsla

mp

(Sch

wab

1996

:V

erte

bra

10–

5m

m5–

10m

m42

)U

ncer

tain

1Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,sp

arid

Tab

le6.

23.(

Con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

Num

ber

ofW

eigh

tPe

riod

and

Loc

atio

nT

renc

h/Pa

ilof

Bon

esB

urnt

Bon

esof

Bon

esFr

agm

ents

Com

men

ts

Tem

ple

C,u

pper

29A

1/26

,ws

130

0.4

gU

nid

enti

fied

6ax

ial

floo

rfr

agm

ents

4ve

rteb

ral

Ver

tebr

ae4

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Tho

raci

c1

Cau

dal

3Id

enti

fied

frag

men

ts2

otol

iths

(1ri

ght

and

1le

ft),

spar

id

Tem

ple

C,s

mal

l29

A1/

28,w

s22

50.

7g

Uni

den

tifi

ed1

cran

ial/

faci

alhe

arth

onso

uth

frag

men

ts5

axia

lw

all,

uppe

rfl

oor

3ve

rteb

ral

(3bu

rnt)

Ver

tebr

ae5

(1bu

rnt)

0–5

mm

5–10

mm

Proa

tlas

1(b

urnt

)Pr

ecau

dal

21

Cau

dal

11

atla

s(b

urnt

),se

rran

id,h

d(p

oste

rior

)8.

6,le

ngth

7.5

Iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

3le

ftot

olit

hs,s

pari

d3

unce

rtai

nd

enti

tion

1un

cert

ain

fish

Bui

ldin

gB

,eas

tern

10A

/22

10

1.3

gId

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

righ

tot

olit

h,U

mbr

ina

cirr

osa

room

,upp

erla

teoc

cupa

tion

leve

l

Per

iod

ofT

emp

leC

Dum

pto

sout

h34

A/

5,10

130

22.9

gU

nid

enti

fied

1cr

ania

l/fa

cial

(onl

ybo

nein

pail

10;0

.4g)

frag

men

tsId

enti

fied

frag

men

ts12

elas

mob

ranc

hce

ntra

:hd

16.9

,len

gth

6.9;

hd17

.5,l

engt

h8.

8;hd

18.6

,len

gth

8.7;

hd18

.3,

leng

th9.

3;hd

18.1

,len

gth

8.5;

hd18

.6,l

engt

h9.

5;hd

17.4

,len

gth

7.4;

hd17

.7,l

engt

h8.

2;hd

17.6

,len

gth

8.2;

hd17

.5,l

engt

h7.

2;hd

17.2

,le

ngth

6.9;

hd18

.5,l

engt

h9.

3

Sout

hof

tem

ple

50A

/3,

51A

/10

20

1.1

gId

enti

fied

frag

men

ts1

left

otol

ith,

Um

brin

aci

rros

a(1

0)1

low

erph

aryn

geal

,Spa

riso

ma

cret

ense

(3)

hd=

hori

zont

ald

iam

eter

unid

.=

unid

enti

fiab

lein

det

.=

ind

eter

min

ate

ws

=w

ater

-sie

ved

p/c

=pr

ecau

dal

orca

udal


a secondary role in the diet. Although estimates of the potential production of Aegean fisheriesbased on Classical and ethnographic evidence imply that fish was a supplementary food, thefact that fish provided nutrients not readily available from other sources might have out-weighed the greater effort required to catch them than to produce an equivalent number ofcalories through farming. Fish might also have been valued for reasons other than nutrition,such as medicinal use.

The evidence of purposeful burning of fish in Temple B and the contexts in which theremains occur (in the temples and related features but not in the sanctuary’s dining room orkitchen) indicate we may be dealing with burnt offerings or ritual dining (the distinction maynot be hard and fast). For dining, we can compare the finds from the 1994 excavations at theDemeter and Kore Sanctuary on Acrocorinth and, perhaps, the funerary banquets from tombsat Salamis. The degree of burning of the Temple B fish remains sets them apart from these,and it is likely that these fish were offerings. The role, if any, of fish and fishing in ritualduring the Temple A and C periods is uncertain. Perhaps the fish remains of Temple B areassociated with worship of Artemis, while those of Temple C may relate to Pan or Poseidon.

5. The Bird Remains (Tables 6.24–6.25)David S. Reese

The bird bones and eggshells from Kommos have been identified by George E. Watson,formerly Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.

There are 101 bird bones from at least 34 individuals from 31 deposits. Fifty bones havebeen identified at least to genus. The only burnt bone is a female chukar partridge coracoidfrom the Temple B, Phase 3, rectangular Hearth 4. There are also 21–24 eggshells from 14deposits. Eggshells are found burnt in the central rectangular hearth and southeastern upperhearth of Temple C.

Table 6.24 lists the bird species present. Table 6.25 is a bone-by-bone analysis of the remains,arranged by period. Plate 5.1 in Reese 1995a shows the bone terms used in the text.

The birds are discussed in helpful categories, and information is provided on name, size,habitat, and breeding (derived from Peterson et al. 1966; Bruun 1978; Keith and Goodens1980; Harrison 1983; Handrinos and Akriotis 1997). Archaeological evidence for each formfrom votive deposits is examined, mainly from central and Eastern Mediterranean sites. Thisis followed by a survey of the literary evidence for the votive significance of each species.

A number of sanctuary sites in Greece, for instance the Glaukos shrine at Knossos, havebird remains, but these have not been identified (G. Jones 1978: 30). Only identified bird bonesare mentioned here. It should also be noted, as G. V. Foster (1984: 77) states, “Bird offerings

The Bird Remains 561

Table 6.24. Bird species present.

Number of Number ofBones Deposits MNI Species

12 4 6 Puffinus yelkouan AcerbiMediterranean shearwater

4 4 4 Alectoris chukar Gray, 1830Chukar partridge

10 3 3 Gallus gallus Linnaeus, 1758(Domestic) chicken

8 2 3 Calonectris diomedea (Scopoli, 1769)Cory’s shearwater

4 2 2 Columba livia Gmelin, 1789Rock dove or pigeon

3 2 2 Large passerineSongbird

2 2 2 Phalacrocorax aristotelis (Linnaeus, 1761)Shag

2 1 1 Falco eleonorae Gene, 1839Eleonara’s falcon

2 1 1–2 Larus argentatus PontoppidanHerring gull

1 1 1 Larus spp.Gull

1 1 1 Buteo cf. buteo (Linnaeus, 1758)Buzzard

1 1 1 Hydrobates pelagicus (Linnaeus, 1758)Storm petrel

1 1 1 Small passerineSongbird

40 8 — Unidentified

MNI = minimum number of individuals

may well have been made by the poor to any deity.” For instance, it was permitted to sacrificeany bird to Aphrodite on Cos in the second century B.C. (Kadletz 1976: 10–11, 274).

Shearwaters and Petrels

Puffinus, Calonectris, and Hydrobates are all seabirds in the Family Procellariidae. Puffinus arethe most common European shearwater, with Puffinus yelkouan found year-round in Greek


Table 6.25. Distribution of bird remains.

Number ofPeriod and Location Trench/Pail Bones Species Description

Temple A

Floors 33C/81–88, ws 14 Columba Coracoid, left, sternal end2 humerus: left, D end; right, shaftfragment

Unidentified 11 shafts

Northeastern 47A 6 Puffinus Humerus, left, shaft and D enddump #2 Radius

UlnaCalonectris Tibiotarsus, P end

Period of Temple A–Temple B, Phase 1

Deposit in south 51A/27 1 Unidentified Shaft fragment

Temple B, Phase 1

Hearth 1 33C/79, ws 3 Puffinus Wing digit, left, second, unburntPhalacrocorax Femur, left, P end, unburntSmall passerine Ulna, D end, unburnt

Court 33C/60, 61, ws 4 Falco Coracoid, right, sternal endTarsometatarsus shaft fragment

Large passerine, Ulna, left, D endslightly smaller Wing digit, right, secondthan male Turdus

Temple B, Phases 1 and 2

Floors 33C/59, 76, 80, 10 Calonectris Tibiotarsus shaft fragmentws Larus argentatus 2 tarsometatarsus: right, P end;

left, P endLarus sp. Humerus, right, P end of shaft6 unidentified Coracoid, shaft, 4 ribs

Period of Temple B, Phase 2

South sounding, 36B/21, ws Gallus Eggshell fragmentsdump

Period of Temple B, Phases 1–3

Dump to south 34A2/31, ws 1 Puffinus Ulna, right, D end34A2/29, 33, ws Columba Eggshell fragments

Levels to southwest 44A/16 1 Puffinus Ulna, right, D end

Temple B, Phases 2 and 3

Ritual deposit 29A1/68, 71, ws Unidentified Eggshell fragmentsaround TripillarShrine

Period of Temple B, Phases 2 and 3

Three-sided slab 56A/10, ws Unidentified Eggshell fragmentenclosure

The Bird Remains 563



Marine meal #14 63A/24, ws 1 Unidentified Bone fragment

South of temple 50A/18 1 Calonectris Humerus, right, D end, articulationbroken

Temple B, Phase 3

Hearth 3 29A1/45, ws 1 Alectoris Carpometacarpus, right, unburnt

Rectangular Hearth 33C/70, ws 1 Alectoris Coracoid, left, humeral end,4 female, burnt

Puffinus Eggshell fragments, unburntUnidentified Eggshell fragments, unburnt

Lower floor 33C/74, 75, ws 2 Unidentified Radius and shaft

Upper floor 33C/57, ws 1 Phalacrocorax Humerus, left, P end

Dump on court 42A/15 1 Alectoris Tibiotarsus, right, D end

General upper 33C 35 Puffinus, 3 MNI 3 humerus, 3 right, D endsinterior pails 4 ulna: 2 left, D ends; 1 right, D

end; 1 (?) side2 radius: right, D end; left, D end

Calonectris Mandible, right ramusHumerus, right, P endCarpometacarpus, right3 tarsometatarsus fragments: left,D end and shaft fragment; rightshaft fragment

Alectoris Tibiotarsus, right, P endColumba Scapula, left, P endButeo ClawLarge passerine Tibiotarsus shaft fragment15 unidentified Bone fragments

33C/49, 52–55, Puffinus Eggshell fragments65, 66, 71–73, ws

Temple C

Temple C, above 29A1/30, 36, ws 10 Gallus Coracoid, left, sternal endand on slab floor Radius, right, D end

Carpal, leftCarpometacarpus, left, P end3 toe digitsClaw

29A1/19, 30, 32, Gallus Eggshell fragments36, ws

Hydrobates Humerus, rightUlna, right, P end

29A1/19, 30, 32, Columba Eggshell fragments36, ws




Temple C, central 29A1/35, 46A/1, Puffinus, 2 MNI Eggshell fragmentsrectangular hearth ws Columba Eggshell fragments, some burnt

Gallus Eggshell fragmentsAlectoris Eggshell fragmentsLarus Eggshell fragments, burntUnidentified Eggshell fragments

Temple C, below re- 29A1/22, ws Unidentified Eggshell fragmentsused Minoan stonelamp (Schwab 1996:42)

Temple C, upper 29A1/26, ws Puffinus Eggshell fragmentsfloor Unidentified Eggshell fragments

Temple C, southeast- 29A1/28, ws Puffinus Eggshell fragments, some burntern upper hearth

Room A1, central 46A1/1, ws Puffinus, 2 MNI Eggshell fragmentshearth Larus Eggshell fragments

Unidentified Eggshell fragments

Building B, eastern 46A2/1 Puffinus Eggshell fragmentsroom, upper floor,hearth in southeast-ern corner

Period of Temple C

Dump to south 34A 1 Gallus Ulna, left, D endPuffinus Eggshell fragments

General pails above 42A/7 1 Unidentified Ulnafounding level out-side entrance toTemple C

South of temple 51A/2 1 Turdus merula (?) Humerus, left

Above founding 47A/5 3 Gallus Humerus, left, D endlevel outside on Unidentified Fragmentsnortheast

South sounding 36B1/1 1 Unidentified Shaft fragment

D = distalMNI = minimum number of individualsP = proximalws = water-sieved

Atherinus Mullus - tspace.library.utoronto.ca · Two sharks with rather generic names have prices...

Documents

Transcript of Atherinus Mullus - tspace.library.utoronto.ca · Two sharks with rather generic names have prices...