atherinus mullus - tspace.library.utoronto.ca · two sharks with rather generic names have prices...
Post on 27-Jul-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
The Fish Remains 517
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).
518 The Iron Age Fauna
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
The Fish Remains 519
(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
520 The Iron Age Fauna
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.
The Fish Remains 521
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
522 The Iron Age Fauna
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
The Fish Remains 523
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,
524 The Iron Age Fauna
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
The Fish Remains 525
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
526 The Iron Age Fauna
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.
The Fish Remains 527
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
528 The Iron Age Fauna
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.
The Fish Remains 529
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
530 The Iron Age Fauna
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
The Fish Remains 531
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
532 The Iron Age Fauna
(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
The Fish Remains 533
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),
534 The Iron Age Fauna
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
The Fish Remains 535
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
536 The Iron Age Fauna
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
The Fish Remains 537
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
538 The Iron Age Fauna
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 − + + +
The Fish Remains 539
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
560 The Iron Age Fauna
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
562 The Iron Age Fauna
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
Table 6.25. (Continued)
Number ofPeriod and Location Trench/Pail Bones Species Description
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
564 The Iron Age Fauna
Table 6.25. (Continued)
Number ofPeriod and Location Trench/Pail Bones Species Description
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
top related