the Wheel and Dating PIE

[roslyn frank]

At 11:06 PM 2/14/00 -0800, Stanley Friesen wrote:

>At 05:48 PM 2/8/00 +0100, Eduard Selleslagh wrote:

>>They were sacrificed though: see e.g. G. Dumézil (La religion romaine
>>archaïque) : Equus October in Rome, As'vamedha in India. (note also Brahman
>><> Flamen). Usually (I don't know in this case) at least parts of sacrificed
>>animals were eaten.

>Quite possibly.  But animals that are *primarily* food animals are rarely
>sanctified.

>A subtle, but important distinction.

I believe that there may be a slight problem with the notion of
"sacrificed" and/or "sanctified" when read through the framework of modern
thought. In traditional cultures even a 'tree' can be understood to be
giving up its life when cut down; or an herb when plucked from the soil. I
would argue that we need to be careful about rendering judgements on past
ritual practices based on the secular view that dominates western thought
vis-a-vis the natural world and the way that its 'resources' are regularly
utilized.

Ritualization of the death of an animal, asking its forgiveness when the
hunter is about to take its life, it not unusual in traditional cultures,
whether that animal be a bear or a rabbit.

Therefore, I would be interested in knowing what the source is, i.e., the
ethnographic data base, for the statement "... animals that are *primarily*
food animals are rarely sanctified." In the case of the traditional
cultures with which I'm familiar, it is precisely those animals and plants
that are used by humans for food that receive the most elaborate and
special ritual treatment, not others that are left alone and not harvested.
In such traditional cultures, there tends to be a sanctification, if you
wish, of life and the natural world as well as humans' relationship to it.

On egin,
Roz