It is not difficult to find the reason for varying interpretations. Whereas, in different ways, we can form an opinion of domestic animals and the species to which they belong, as well as of their appearance, particularly thanks to numerous representations in art,80 it is much more difficult to arrive at a proper understanding of the role animal husbandry played in Greek agriculture. We have already observed that the few farms excavated furnish no information regarding stables, and so on, and our main sources on agricultural matters, Hesiod and Xenophon, hardly ever mention livestock. Hesiod confines himself to mentioning the draught-oxen (Works and Days, ll. 405, 436 and 606) where winter fodder is collected for them and for the mules. Sheep, goats and oxen freezing in winter are mentioned; sheep, however, are protected against the cold by their coat (ll. 515 ff.). We are also told the time when sheep, boar and bull should be castrated (l. 786), and when a heifer should be sacrificed (l. 590). It seems evident that especially the draught-animals are of interest, and it may be noted that you shall purchase one ox (l. 405); elsewhere Hesiod mentions the plough team in the dual (l. 437) with the epithet ‘9-year old’.
Xenophon is even more silent. Ischomachos buys his horse, and instructions are given concerning the purchase of a riding horse in De Re Equestri. Apart from that, the draught-animals appear especially in connection with threshing; these animals (hypozygia) are oxen, mules and horses (Oeconomicus 18.3). It may be remembered that burning the stubble after harvest is recommended so this does not serve for grazing during the fallow period.
Deducing from this information that there were no domestic animals would be erroneous, and a closer perusal of both authors will show that animals do appear in other contexts. Hesiod is herding sheep when the Muses approach him (Theogony, l.22); and through work you become rich, the expressions used being polymelos and aphneios, i.e., possessing many sheep and being rich (l. 308). In the same way, the sheep recur in the somewhat more philosophical discourse in Oeconomicus 1.9: only if you are successful in sheep-breeding, the animals constitute wealth; likewise, cattlebreeding or rather sheep-breeding (probateutike techne) is directly associated with agriculture (georgia), the former giving to man material to be sacrificed to the gods in order to please them, as well as something which benefits man himself.
Here, we may think of the sheep’s wool and milk, etc., or in a wider sense the entire stock-breeding, although the expression is vaguely naïve. In the philosophical writings too, Xenophon mentions sheep as a natural element, but usually in contexts so general that we cannot determine what the conditions of the livestock were and the relation to farming.
The main source for Greek cattle-breeding is the Historia Animalium by Aristotle. Thus, we find ourselves in the same situation as that which applies to agriculture; the main purpose of the source is not an attempt to describe cattle-breeding as such, but rather to present a classification and a description. But here and there, scattered throughout the books, there are hints which reflect how the author observed the life of domesticated animals. The modern reader cannot but admire the enormous amount of empirical material collected in this work, but at the same time it must be emphasized that Aristotle does not take a particular interest in these animals. One might have thought that the task of describing them was too easy for him. In fact, we often know more about anatomical details than we do about everyday happenings.
The sixth book is the most profitable part (571 ff.). This contains an account of the rut and heat, mating, the food and the rearing of the young ones. From this it appears that Aristotle takes it for granted that most domestic animals live in herds. In the period of heat, one stallion is calculated to cover some 30 mares, and the stallions will compete among themselves; likewise, the bulls will often graze by themselves until the period of mating when they will go in search for the cows. As a matter of curiosity it is mentioned that Epirote bulls may be completely out of sight for three months of the year, a circumstance which presupposes the existence of very large areas for the use of the cattle there. Also rams and billy-goats are aggressive during their period of heat, whereas dogs and pigs will mate any time of the year. These two species are known as synanthropeuomena which should probably not be taken to indicate domesticated animals in general – here the adjective hemeros is normally used – but as a designation for animals which live together with man.
Dog and pig are listed in the same category again (542a) where domestic birds with several broods are added; the same terminology is also used about insects which are able to winter in human dwellings (599a). It seems as if Aristotle makes a distinction between animals living in herds and animals living in the close vicinity of people. We stress these statements because, in the context, they express a simple and evident observation and not an attempt at systematizing.
Domestic animals were originally wild species tamed by man. Aristotle is fully aware of this (488a). The process seems to be as old as the domestication of cultured plants, and we shall not here pursue this process in detail. Like cultivated plants, domesticated animals have developed characteristic species by means of more or less deliberate breeding. Aristotle is conscious of this too, and we find many suggestions as to how breeding animals should be selected. We cannot follow the development of the domesticated animals in detail, nor is this necessary for our purpose. Several of the animals in question probably never existed in their wild form in Greece but were originally imported – the last of them perhaps the horse, which arrived in the Bronze Age – but all the animals are mentioned in the Mycenaean tablets, which testify to a large animal husbandry. However, we shall not pursue this matter here, but review, however briefly, the most important domestic animals with an emphasis on the description given by Aristotle.
HORSES, DONKEYS AND MULES
In his description of the horse, Aristotle (575b) allots a period of 18 to 20 years as its normal lifetime. Horses are sexually mature at the age of 2, but older breeders are preferable, and it is only after the shedding of the last teeth, when the animal has reached the age of about 4 1/2 years, that it is fully developed. The mare foals normally after a pregnancy of just over 11 months, and Aristotle stresses the fact that the mare should foal only every other year ‘so that she may as it were lie fallow’. It is better that she should be made in foal only every fourth or fifth year. Therefore, this is a case of a slow and quite costly reproduction, but then, the horse is procreative throughout its life.
While the horse demands a considerable amount of fodder, the donkey is much more easily satisfied. Both are included among the graminivorous species (karpophagoi kai poephagoi, 595b), but the donkey has a longer span of life, often more than 30 years. Like the horse, the donkey’s pregnancy is 11 months, and it gives birth in the twelfth. Unlike the horse it seems that the she-ass was mated in the first heat immediately after (577a). Twin-birth is rare. Not only then is maintenance of the donkey cheaper, but reproduction takes place much more frequently. The mule is the sterile crossbreed between the male donkey and the horse mare. This animal combines the power of its mother with the endurance of its father and is, therefore, a valued domestic animal.
Although Aristotle is well aware of the phenomenon of castration (631b), he does not specifically mention castration of the equine domestic animals. Therefore we cannot be sure whether breeding takes place also in connection with very limited husbandry. Aristotle mentions that horses reared privately live longer than those from large establishments but he does not say what is normal practice. We should remember that Xenophon has no intention of buying castrated stallions for riding, but, as we have mentioned, he does purchase the mount. This is not a case of home breeding. Presumably, we have to assume that normally the farmer would have to buy at least the mule and perhaps also some of his donkeys.
Cows have a life span of about 15 years, the bullock, the castrated bull, about the same, whereas bulls can live somewhat longer (575a). If a bullock has been trained to lead a herd, it will live longer than the 15 years owing to a greater quantity of fodder and because it is not a beast of burden. Sexual maturity occurs during the second year of the animal’s life, mostly after the twentieth month or at the age of 2. The pregnancy is 9 months, and the cow may be served shortly after calving. Apparently there are no limitations with regard to the frequency of pregnancies, and the animals are procreative throughout their lives. Normally one calf is born, rarely two. This means that one cow is able to produce more than ten calves – in other words, a reproduction much larger than that of the horse – but not much larger than that of the donkey. The ox is fully mature at the age of 5. Here, Aristotle refers to the Homeric usage pentaeteros and enneoros, words which have the same meaning. In that case, the latter must indicate an age of nine half-years. Others feel that the juxtaposition of the two words, as Aristotle has them, would indicate that the ox is unimpaired from the fifth to the ninth year. We have already seen that Hesiod calls the plough-oxen ‘9-year olds’, but West is undoubtedly right in his interpretation when he calls it ‘a formulaic age’.82
Castration of the bulls takes place when they reach the age of one year; otherwise they would not grow on satisfactorily. The operation is described in detail (632a), and we must assume that it is well known and commonly practised.
The function of the ox is primarily its performance as a draught-animal, designed for strenuous labour such as ploughing and heavy transport (see ). We have seen representations of mules as a plough-team, but the ox is shown more often. Although the bullock is the stronger, the cow is also used as a draught-animal in many civilizations; from the references in our texts we cannot determine the sex of the animals. Hard labour, however, diminishes the fertility of cows considerably, and it is probably safe to assume that most draught-animals were bullocks. The observation concerning the longer life-span of the leading bullock on the pasture, together with other indications adduced above, would suggest that breeding normally is extensive.
Apart from being used for labour, the ox delivers milk, but the Greeks were not milk-drinkers; besides, they preferred milk from sheep and goats for making their cheese. Finally, the ox is an important sacrificial animal, its meat a favourite dish and its hide was used for a multitude of purposes. Naturally, these aspects are of no interest to Aristotle, the zoologist, and consequently they are not mentioned.
SHEEP AND GOATS
We should point out that sheep and goats were sacrificial animals, and their meat was a much-coveted item of food. In view of the rate of reproduction, it was possible to set aside a fairly large number of lambs and kids, produced annually, for slaughter and offering without interfering with the size of the stock.
The domestic pig is not looked upon as being either particularly frugivorous or graminivorous, but as a root-eating creature, rizophagos (595a), and by nature it is well suited to grubbing the soil. At the same time it is an animal that can be nourished by the most diverse kinds of food – in other words what we should call omnivorous. A sow may live to the age of 15 years, some even more; the pregnancy is 4 months, after which it will give birth to as many as 20 piglets. Modern experience indicates that these are exceptional cases. Aristotle does mention that the sow cannot rear very large litters of young (573a). The pig reaches sexual maturity at the age of 8 months so that the sow will normally farrow at the age of 1 year; she can then continue breeding for the rest of her life, whereas the boar breeds most favourably between his first and third year (545a). It is recommended that the boar should be fed on barley when breeding, whereas the sow should be fed on boiled barley when farrowing.
Pigs are kept almost exclusively for the sake of their meat. Therefore Aristotle has specific recipes for its fattening (595). The same applies as to other animals, you begin by starving the pigs for some days; thereupon they are given as much as they can eat. They are fattened during 60 days, but unfortunately the zoologist does not tell us at which age the fattening begins; so this bit of information is not of much use when trying to evaluate the breeding of pigs. When the root-eating habits of the animal are emphasized, the reason is probably that pigs living in the open are referred to, but as we have mentioned above, the pig is called synanthropeuomenos, that is, living together with man, like the dog. This does not indicate very extensive breeding.
The pig appears as a sacrificial animal in a number of cults, often not as a fully grown animal (see p. 177 ). It is evident that with their considerable ability in procreation, the greater part of the breeding of pigs must have been directed towards sacrificing and/or slaughtering.
The interest which Aristotle devotes to poultry is rather closely connected with egglaying and procreation, described in the beginning of his sixth book. Among domestic birds he mentions, in particular, barnyard fowls and pigeons; geese to a lesser degree. Whereas the pigeons lay only two eggs at a time, and hatch them, the domestic hen stands out in its ability to lay eggs practically all year round. Aristotle has undertaken – or he has arranged for someone to undertake – exact investigations of the development of the embryo in the egg, and describes it in detail.84 The fact that the greater part of the eggs are not used for hatching, but for food, is not of the same interest, and there are no precise descriptions of poultry keeping. However, there is no reason to believe that it reached the stage it did in the Hellenistic and Roman periods; the third book of Varro’s De Re Rustica is devoted to the so-called villaticae pastiones. It comprises the breeding of poultry, the common dormouse, hares and rabbits, and so on, which may be kept with advantage in a limited area. Varro’s terminology is frequently Greek (ornithon, ornithoboskeion, chenoboskeion and so on), but no sources allow us to decide the earlier history of this terminology. There is nothing to indicate the existence of larger and more highly developed poultry keeping in the Archaic and Classical periods. It may also be noted that the domestic hen seems to have been introduced into Greece at a fairly late date, probably from Persia. The first specific mention of the cock is found in the poems of Theognis (ll.863 ff.), but it would be wrong to deduce, from this, that the bird was not known at an earlier date. From the Bronze Age there is only one case where bones of hens have been found, but from the time of the geometric style we have a couple of terracottas representing a cock, found in a child’s grave in Attica,85 and in later Greek art from Archaic black-figure vase paintings hens are well known, and cockfighting seems to have been a favourite sport. But it would be unwise to draw any conclusions about poultry farming on the basis of this evidence. The goose is mentioned in the Odyssey; the best-known example is Penelope’s flock of twenty geese which, in a dream, are killed by an eagle. They live on the farmyard and are fed by wheat thrown into water (Od. 19.536 ff.). Richter (1968) regards this flock as a luxury and argues that, properly speaking, the goose cannot be considered a domestic bird in the Odyssey.
BEES
Honey is the most important sweetening agent in antiquity, and the production of honey played an important role. Although Aristotle displays great interest in the social structure of the bees, he does not succeed in disclosing its proper context with the one and only procreative queen bee, the workers and the drones whose only function is procreation. As we know, bees pair aloft, often at a great height, and it seems that they have not been observed and described. Therefore, the sequence on the social structure of the bees (553a, ff.) does not convey much information about apiculture, but it does reveal great interest in the subject. However, archaeological discoveries of terracotta beehives have added to our knowledge.86 It would take us too far to engage in a more detailed discussion of this matter in our context.
********
In conclusion, we may say that Aristotle reveals an intimate knowledge of many aspects of animal husbandry. He does, of course, convey a number of observations that we, today, can denounce as being faulty (for instance the assertion that when sheep mate when the wind blows from the north, the offspring will be of the male sex, whereas the offspring will be female when the south wind blows (574a)). No doubt this builds on information gleaned from superstitious shepherds. He does, however, have an open eye for many details, and he mentions different species of the different animals. In our opinion, it would serve no purpose to pursue this subject further. It would require the inclusion of later sources, first and foremost the Roman agronomists who have left us a legacy of carefully worded descriptions of the individual domestic animals. These may stem from Mago of Carthage.87 Aristotle is conscious of the importance associated with the selection of breeding animals, and we must assume that a very deliberate effort with regard to breeding has constantly taken place, including the purchase and transport of breeders aiming at an improvement of the stock. This procedure seems to have been intensified in Hellenistic and Roman times, if we rely on the exorbitant prices paid for breeding material. For this reason we shall refrain from discussing this aspect, also because anyone interested can easily find it dealt with in various other studies.
If we turn to the Homeric epics, there is an abundance of cattle. They may be cattle of the sun-god, 7 herds (agelai) of cows and 7 herds (poea) of sheep, each comprising 50 animals (Od. 12.127 ff.), or the cattle of the Eleans which in his youth Nestor captured (Il. 11.678 ff.): 50 herds of cows and as many herds of sheep, pigs and goats, together with 150 mares, most of them with foal. The number of cattle which Odysseus owned on the mainland is of the same heroic dimensions, in the proud enumeration of Eumaios (Od. 14.100 ff.): 12 herds of cows and as many sheep, pigs and goats. The choice of words in the two passages is strikingly similar, and one wonders whether it is a coincidence that in both cases we meet persons who openly brag about achievements of their youth or about the property of their master. Besides, on Ithaka itself, Odysseus owns 11 herds of goats and all the pigs administered by Eumaios.
We also find cattle used as a unit in reckoning. It had cost 100 oxen in ransom to free Lykaon (Il. 21.79); Laertes bought Eurykleia for 20 oxen (Od. 1.431); and Glaukos exchanges his arms, worth 100 oxen, against those of Diomedes which are valued at 9 oxen (Il. 6.236). In these cases adjectives of the types hekatomboios, enneaboios, etc., are used, which would indicate that we are dealing with units quite commonly applied which could be used not only in the epic genre.
Finally, cattle appear in the numerous similes just as we have seen agriculture used as a point of comparison. The army of the Achaeans is likened to flies swarming round the shepherds’ stable when milking takes place in spring, and their commanding officers separate their men as easily as goatherds separate their herds when they have been grazing with others in the pasture (en to nomo); Agamemnon towers among the people as the bull amongst the cows (Il. 2.469 ff.). The physician arrests the bleeding just as the rennet curdles the milk (Il. 5.902 f.), and Hektor lifts a stone with the same ease as a shepherd carries the wool from a male lamb (Il. 12.451ff.).
One particular type of simile compares the fight of the epic heroes with wild animals attacking the cattle. It is often the lion that provides the point of comparison. It is unlikely that there were lions in Greece when the poems were composed, but the lion is a well-known motif in the art of the Greek Bronze Age and reappears at the time of the late geometric style; it is, of course, also well known in the literature of the ancient Near East. As this animal was looked upon as the wildest of them all, there is no reason to wonder why it should play this role in the epic tradition. Dunbabin (1957) has a remark that Homer’s lions are never heard to roar, from which he deduces that they were probably literary or iconographical borrowings. Deducing e silentio is always dangerous, but his observation is strikingly accurate. It does not follow that the cattle under attack are of foreign origin too. On the contrary, the poet has introduced the wild animal into the reality that he and his audience know. Otherwise the simile would not present the lucid picture designed to illustrate the main trend of the story.
The wild animals will attack a herd of animals and kill a single one, an ox (Il.11.172), a lamb or a kid (Il. 16.352 ff.); or they will go in search of stables and paddocks (Il. 5.554 ff.; 11.548 ff.) where the cattle are supervised by men and dogs who fight back unless, like the shepherd (Il. 5.136 ff.), they are frightened and go into hiding. These similes do not mention villages or any other regular buildings. Stathmos, aule or mesaulos, in theory, may be found anywhere, as the words do not necessarily signify anything other than pens or paddocks. With this connotation we shall meet them again in the few sources that specifically mention transhumance. In all probability, such were the ornamentations with which Hephaistos embellished the shield of Achilles since stathmoi, thatched huts (klisiai) and pens (sekoi) are found in a lovely valley in the mountains (en kale besse). In the same place there is a description of the cattle hurrying to the pasture (nomonde) direct from the dung (apo koprou) (Il. 18.575 ff.). Elsewhere, they hurry home to the dung (eskopron) where the calves are awaiting them so eagerly that the pens (sekoi) cannot restrain them (Od. 10.411). In both cases, presumably, we are dealing with fenced areas which give shelter for the night; in the latter case the calves are kept there whereas the cows graze farther afield.
There is a noteworthy agreement between Aristotle’s view of domestic animals as being herd animals, and Homer’s similes. Admittedly, the epic genre likes to describe conditions as particularly glamorous, and quite often the animals live under a system of ranching, guarded by dogs and shepherds. This requires very special conditions.
The animals require water, and it is scarcely a coincidence that the shield of Achilles also shows an ambush where the herd of cattle is attacked at a river (Il. 18.520 ff.), just as the herd of cattle mentioned above is also attacked at a river where there are rushes growing (575 ff.). With this, we may compare the herd of cattle comprising a multitude of animals living in a water-logged area with perennial growth of grass (Il. 15.630 ff.).
Animal husbandry of this kind cannot, of course, be maintained everywhere in Greece. It requires space and reasonable grazing. We have already looked at the landscape of the Plain of Marathon where the river estuary forms a swamp with grazing and water for the cows, whereas sheep and goats are relegated to the less opulent growth on the untilled heights which are not arable (cf. pp. 14 ff.). It is probably not a coincidence when, as mentioned above, Nestor aims his predatory cattle raid at Elis where rain is more plentiful, nor that the famous Epirote cows are to be found in the more humid climate in western Greece. If, in general, we consider references to cattle, we may conclude that Thessaly and the Peloponnese were known for their horses, oxen, sheep and goats whereas Euboea and Boeotia have in fact taken names derived from the word for oxen. As shepherd-country, Arcadia in the central Peloponnese was renowned, and from there the best mules were obtained. Sheep and goats were found everywhere, even in the driest areas like Attica and Megara. Likewise, pigs could be kept everywhere, although to a lesser extent, but we have noted earlier the category into which Aristotle placed them. In greater numbers they could be kept in wooded areas, which were probably not so scarce as was argued in earlier literature on the subject. A precise charting of the distribution of cattle-breeding cannot be attempted here, but it should be noted that the locations mentioned as far as larger cattle are concerned, all benefit from greater precipitation.
This coupling of information derived from Aristotle and Homer may seem bold. To some extent, it does limit the theory proposed by Snodgrass that, from being an agricultural society in the Bronze Age, Greece reverted to rather more pastoral patterns of culture in the so-called ‘dark’ centuries, then became an agricultural society again in the historical period.88 The dark centuries are poor in archaeological findings, and the country was perhaps more or less depopulated. However, the life of the shepherd is no more attractive than that of the farmer. There does not seem to be any reason why drastic alterations of exploiting the soil should have taken place, even if untilled ground could be used for areas of grazing where the climate, that is to say the summer precipitation, would warrant it. It is true, of course, that the consumption of meat occurred much more frequently in the Homeric epics, but we prefer to interpret it as an expression of the specific epic glamour that surrounded the lives of the heroes. It was a widespread ancient theory that cattle-breeding constituted a somewhat more primitive stage than agriculture, but this is scarcely so.89 Rather, it is a question of two different ways of exploiting different types of soil. Extensive cattle-breeding requires a great deal of space, but it should be borne in mind that the Mycenaean tablets, in their turn, testify to the existence of considerable numbers of domestic animals. Here it would seem reasonable to discuss the problem of transhumance.
TRANSHUMANCE
Transhumance is a type of cattle-breeding where cattle change between summer grazing in the mountains where precipitation, and therefore also grass, is plentiful, and in the winter season grazing in the lowland where winter rain allows for growth. Transhumance is known from many places in the world and in many different periods. In the Mediterranean world, we are fairly well acquainted with transhumance in Italy in antiquity and in more recent periods; in Spain in the Middle Ages and from more recent times; and from North Africa, Provence and in Greece where in particular the Sarakatsani and the Vlachs from northern Greece have solicited interest. They live in mountain villages and graze their herds during winter all the way down to the Peloponnese.
In his tragedy, Oedipus Rex (ll. 1121 ff.), Sophocles makes two shepherds meet on Mount Kithairon where they have their herds grazing through the summer. During winter they have them grazing near their respective home towns, Corinth and Thebes. One shepherd is a slave, the other a hired worker. In other words, they are both of inferior status and tend another man’s herd. It is specifically stated that they graze their herds during summer for six months each year. This is what is known as ‘transhumance normale’. Its opposite ‘transhumance inverse’, is hinted at in the seventh speech of Dio Chrysostom where the homestead is in the mountains of Euboea.90
Transhumance does not require much in the way of solid buildings. From Sophocles and Dio we find epaulos, aule and stathmoi and perhaps skene, a hut. Traces of these more or less perishable pens and primitive buildings are often found in modern Greece, and there is no particular reason to assume that such installations were more elaborate in antiquity.91 In our own time we know of cases of very brief changes of pastures when transport takes only a few days, and where there is an established connection between winter and summer stations. A vivid description of this, from southern Argolis, has been given by H.A. Koster (1976). The question is not whether transhumance existed in ancient Greece; the question is, exclusively, of its extent and importance.. Apart from very few literary descriptions, we have some epigraphical sources which mention the right to use the pastures for summer grazing, epinomia. Grazing is restricted to citizens in the territory where the pastures are to be found, but as a privilege the right may be conveyed to strangers. Such areas will often be located in the border-area between two states and may give rise to controversies. An example is found in Thucydides 5.42, where the conflict concerns a pasture common to the Athenians and the Boeotians at Panakton and in Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (8.3), when the controversies between Lokris and Phocis turn out to be the cause of the Corinthian War in 395/4. Single treaties between states are also handed down epigraphically; by these, the passing of herdsmen with their herds through foreign territory was regulated. So, the boundaries of the city-state were not insurmountable, but this did require authorization on the part of the government of the state.
Whereas, in earlier research, by simple analogy with more recent times, transhumance was used as an explanation of a number of phenomena and taken for granted, we may now observe a greater scepticism. This applies to archaeologists dealing with prehistory92 as well as to a group of scholars who devote themselves to the historical period in particular.93 It is probably not possible to determine exactly how great a role this type of cattle-breeding played, nor how many were involved. Everything indicates that the shepherds were of an inferior social status, and that the herds did not belong to them. In this connection it is better to disregard the Hellenistic bucolic poetry as a source: partly because it pertains to a period later than that with which we here are concerned, and partly because it reflects an idyllic description of the herdsman’s life which most likely does not correspond to reality. It is our opinion that larger numbers of animals in the herds were moved to the relatively scarce habitats that would ensure sufficient fodder throughout the year, or else the animals were moved from place to place wherever an adequate amount of fodder was available.
Sheep and goats lamb in early spring. Shearing takes place somewhat later, immediately before the animals are led to pastures on higher land. We have already shown how simple the production of cheese is with regard to tools, and the transport of cheese to places where there is a market offers no difficulty. Thus, there are no technical difficulties connected with utilizing the secondary produce of the animals. It should also be noted that, if the fodder situation allows it, such animals which might be required, for instance for sacrificial purposes, can be retained near the city.
Although we have quite a few references to cattle generously spread throughout our tradition, it is only on rare occasions that we are able to make direct deductions concerning animal husbandry. For instance, we find the following gnome by Theognis (ll. 183 ff.): ‘We seek noble rams, donkeys and horses as breeders, but a good man does not hesitate to marry a wicked man’s wicked daughter . . .’ (cf. l. 1112, with no reference to the domestic animals); but apart from revealing a knowledge of deliberate breeding, the quotation tells us little. We must look for more substantial information.
In the Attic forensic speeches we find a couple of specific bits of information. In a litigation concerning a will, it seems that someone has wasted no time in selling out part of the assets, namely, a piece of land, a bath house in Peiraieus, a house in the city, and in addition a herd of goats, with a herdsman, two teams of mules, along with all the artisan slaves – all told at a value of more than 3 talents. We cannot tell whether the mules were designed to provide city-transport or work in the countryside, and the number of goats is not indicated specifically, but the price paid for them and for the herdsman amounts to 13 minas (Isaeus 6.33).
Furthermore, the same author (11.41) mentions a fortune comprising a piece of land in Eleusis, valued at 2 talents – 60 sheep, 100 goats, tools and a mount which the owner had been using when phylarchos, along with other equipment. In a speech by Demosthenes (47.52) it is mentioned that the defendant and his accomplices stole 50 sheep, along with their shepherd and his assistant, as well as some domestic utensils, including a bronze hydria. Not satisfied with this, they trespassed on the owner’s piece of land (chorion) where he lived, near the hippodrome, and caused several instances of damage. In the latter case we should note that first the sheep were stolen, and then the trespassing on the man’s ground took place. Consequently, it would seem that the sheep had been grazing elsewhere.
Scholars interpret these passages very differently. Burford Cooper (1977/8) would prefer to regard the Demosthenic passage as evidence to show that the sheep were grazing ‘on public land’, whereas Hodkinson would attach importance to the fact that the sheep were grazing near the farm and are to be looked upon as part of it – like the herds mentioned in the two passages from Isaeus. In fact, he speaks about ‘agropastoral farms’.94 We intend to stress the point that in these speeches domestic animals are dealt with as separately valued entities which are not sold or evaluated along with other property. This is scarcely a coincidence. In the same way, we find domestic animals evaluated separately on the Attic stelai, and there is nothing to indicate that a country estate is sold with its stock of animals. Thus, Panaitios has 2 draught oxen and 2 unspecified oxen, 4 cows with calves (how many is not known), 67 goats and 84 sheep, both registered with kids and lambs respectively, without any indication of number.95
All in all, we must conclude that these sources, few in number, do not by themselves provide a clear picture of the kind of animal husbandry in ancient Greece, but they do allow us to stress the point that, in any case, sheep and goats appear as herds and are treated as separate entities in declarations of property and sale, sometimes together with a herdsman. This cannot be used as evidence of an essential connection between agriculture and animal husbandry, apart from the fact that frequently the land and the cattle belonged to the same owner. As it remains uncertain whether farmers normally lived in farms in the open country or in buildings of rather a more urban character, perhaps in the main city itself, no significant conclusions can be drawn on the basis of this evidence. Nevertheless, we do know that, in time of war, rural districts had to be vacated and the population, and sometimes the animals also, evacuated to the city. People usually chose to send the animals elsewhere, into the mountains or, as the Athenians did during the Archidamian War, to a different state, such as Euboea or some of the islands. Thucydides (2.14.1) mentions sheep and draught-animals (probata kai hypozygia), so that we cannot be in doubt as to which animals were at stake. Thanks to Andokides we know that Athens was heavily overcrowded by refugees, sheep, cattle and chariots (fr. 3). This entire complex of problems has been thoroughly dealt with by Hanson (1983) to whose work in general a reference will suffice.
Against this conclusion that, apart from draught-animals, cattle was counted by herds and lived in herds, it may well be argued that only large numbers were sufficient to attract the interest of our sources. This is possible, and we have to admit that the four cows and their calves belonging to Panaitios indicate a relatively modest animal husbandry in connection with a country estate. However, such an estate is not mentioned.
Beehives are also mentioned with an indication of their location, but the hives are not necessarily to be looked for at the ground owned by Panaitios. Consequently, we are unable to ascertain whether they have any relation to Panaitios’ real property.
Small units of cattle are seldom mentioned. A single case should be mentioned: Aelian quotes one Aeschylides, of whom we otherwise know little, as a witness to the effect that people on Keos had but few sheep (oliga probata) which they fed by treemedick (cytisus), leaves of fig, leaves of the olive tree, follicles of pulse, etc. These sheep yielded a great deal of milk from which the owners produced an excellent cheese, and this brought them a very advantageous price (De Natura Animalium 16.32). Hodkinson sees in this ‘an excellent example of labour-intensive, integrated agropastoral landholdings on which fodder crops and the residues of pulse and tree cultivation were utilized for rearing animals’.96 With this, we cannot agree. Aelian’s interests are largely associated with mirabilia. Reading the context will demonstrate it clearly. As a cause for the unusual stock of sheep it is adduced that the soil of Keos is poor and without nomos where you would have expected to find the sheep grazing.
Therefore we must regard this example as an exceptional case which confirms the rule, a mirabile on a par with the others which are mentioned. However, this does not exclude the possibility that many – especially people who were less well off – may have had a limited number of small cattle and perhaps some draught-animals. They may have grazed on marginal land where crops could not be raised, and naturally they would have been given what was at hand – for instance pods, leaves, etc. In modern Greece you often see branches pruned from olive-trees collected in heaps, whereupon goats will strip the leaves from them. Once the wood is dry, it will be used as fuel, sometimes in the form of charcoal. A modest herd of sheep or goats will be sufficient to satisfy the need for milk and especially cheese in a smallish household, but it does not seem to warrant a description like ‘agro-pastoral farming’.
Likewise, a modest amount of pig-keeping may be based on such fodder as kitchen refuse. One might recall the passage in the Acharnians by Aristophanes where the farmer from Megara wishes to sell his daughters by pretending they are pigs (ll. 736 ff.). Even in Athens you might encounter pigs, if indeed we can trust Plutarch’s anecdote about Socrates meeting a herd of pigs in the street (De Genio Socratis 580 E). If we wish to find a modern parallel to animal husbandry of this nature, it would be natural to visit Methana where husbandry is described as follows:
Besides growing a wide range of crops each househeld owns a few sheep and house goats for milk, meat and wool and hair, and a donkey and/or mule or two for draft and transport. In the old days nearly every household had a pig. Now there are only two families with brood sows. Also in the past, numbers of sheep and house goats were larger and several families had flocks of ghidia (range goats).
(Forbes 1976, 239)
It should be remembered that Methana is one of the Greek districts with the lowest precipitation. In other areas where precipitation is more plentiful the possibilities for maintaining larger stocks of cattle are much more favourable. It is, however, significant that mules still had to be imported to Methana at the time when the investigation was performed since no horse existed!
A comparison with modern conditions forces us to consider that draught-animals, too, had to be bred for transport that need not necessarily have to do with agriculture. In larger cities it must have been essential that donkeys and mules should be available for internal transport by wagon, and overland transport usually took place by mule. Similarly, heavy transport, especially of building material, was made possible by means of teams of oxen. We cannot possibly estimate the number of animals thus employed, but it must have been considerable. Osborne (1987, 14) points out that there must exist a close connection between ‘the agricultural year’ and ‘the construction year’, – transport of building material takes place during the months when the oxen are not occupied by ploughing. The empirical material is not very adequate in favour of ‘the construction year’, consisting of a few inscriptions indicating expenses connected with transport, mostly from Eleusis. It would be strange if plough-oxen had not been used when available. To our knowledge, few attempts have been made to estimate the quantity of stones used for the construction of Greek monumental buildings. One attempt at an estimate arrives at a figure of more than 20,000 tons used for the construction of the Parthenon.97 For this, many teams of oxen must have been required, in whichever way blocks and drums may have been transported. It bears comparison with the Attic honorary decree which was raised in the year 329, commemorating Eudemos of Plataea. Among other things, he contributed 1000 teams of oxen for the work at the stadion and the Panathenaic theatre.98 This gave to him and to his descendants the title of euergetes as well as the right to own land in Attica, and also the right to perform active service in case of war, and to pay eisphora, in other words all civil rights except the right to vote and eligibility.
As the inscription has been interpreted in different ways, it calls for a closer analysis. We agree with Burford (1960) that Eudemos of Plataea is not likely to have been the owner of 1000 teams of oxen. Rather, he places them at the disposal of the construction work and may have hired them from perhaps as many farmers. Thus, a private citizen has taken upon himself the entire organization of a vast contractor’s enterprise, probably as a voluntary donation. Whether these were teams of oxen together with chariots, is probably more than doubtful (‘carts and pairs of oxen’, as Tod (1948) maintains). Burford points to several sources that show that several teams of oxen were necessary in order to haul a single load.
Furthermore, she suggests that, perhaps, Eudemos did not provide the oxen but put up money to hire them; she suggests as a possibility that we are not, in fact, dealing with teams of oxen in the proper sense of the term, but that we have to envisage 1000 ‘yoke days’. Both suggestions seem problematic. Apart from the oxen, Eudemos provided 4000 drachmas to the war (eis ton polemon). Why shouldn’t the decree have continued to state that he had placed an amount to be used for the transport if that was meant? As far as ‘yoke days’ are concerned, one would have liked to see just a couple of examples to show that zeugos could have this connotation, but the Eleusis accounts register payment per team per day over a specific number of days. It may be difficult to visualize the actual situation, but the oxen would not necessarily have to be present simultaneously. It is questionable whether a team could manage heavy transport over a long period day after day, but we do not know the nature or the duration of the work. It may have been a matter of removing earth and other material from the excavations while the theatre and the stadion were being erected, or it may have been transport of building material for the building operations.
One should remember that the draught-animals require fodder as well as water. Inasmuch as they are out of their agricultural context, then fodder has to be transported to the resting places or at least left in caches. The responsibility for this part of the job rested on people of whom we know nothing, but it must have called for considerable organization which should not be underrated. The purchasing of fodder would probably have had to take place, whereby the transaction becomes even more complicated. It is also possible that the individual teams carried their own fodder, sufficient for at least a few days, but the oxen require an ample amount of fodder, provided we may rely on Cato’s rations (De Agricultura, 60).
All in all, Osborne seems vaguely optimistic when, as it seems, he reads between the lines that transport of building material is simple because the oxen are nearby. No major undertaking is simple in a pre-industrial society, but looking at the results, we have to conclude that this aspect of the matter was also solved. It is only when trying to visualize the situation that we see the difficulties involved. This is probably what Plutarch did when he wrote the famous chapter (12) in his Life of Pericles where he enumerates the numerous different artisans employed in the Periclean building programme. Naturally, transport tradesmen are also mentioned, but the chapter is a reflection rather than a rendering of an earlier source. It should be remembered that the building programme included the Long Walls, the erection of which was probably initiated before 460. Here, too, heavy transport was needed for building material as well as rubbish to be used as foundation in a swampy area (cf. Plutarch, Cimon 13). Rebuilding these walls also called for transport as mentioned in inscriptions which, for example, mention payment for teams of oxen (Tod 1948, no. 107). The erection of the Long Walls served to protect overland transport from Piraeus to Athens, and transport along this line must certainly be called heavy, especially when imported grain was in question.99
It is a dogma often repeated that heavy transport over land was an economic impossibility in antiquity. Nevertheless, this expense was met when needed: modern historians, we feel, have often let themselves be blinded by a contemporary cost benefit evaluation which was far from the ancients. Burford’s thorough analysis of the sources shows it, and we must bear in mind that, naturally, our sources are mainly concerned with building activities because these were public and often connected with the erection of sacred buildings. We have no way of guessing at the number of oxen which were employed for tasks outside agricultural service, nor can we estimate the total number of draught-animals. We can only surmise that procuring such animals at certain fixed points of time, in great quantities, as well as keeping them fed during transport, must have been extremely complex questions of organization; however, such problems are far beyond the spheres of interest in the sources which are at our disposal.
Light transport, with donkeys and mules, is generally speaking far less known. An amusing, albeit late source, is pseudo-Lucian’s novel about Lucius who is transformed into a donkey and changes owner incessantly, therefore being commanded to perform the most diversified types of labour. Apart from the fact that, in our period, it appears that donkeys have not been made use of in working the grain quern,100 all other work can easily be referred to our period. In particular, we may think of the transport of fuel, mostly wood and charcoal, particularly in connec again, we may refer to the vase painting in the Louvre where, beside ploughing, we see a two-wheeled cart loaded with two large vessels and drawn by two mules. Attention should be paid to the donkey which is moving in the direction of one handle. These hardy animals require little care. On the island of Lesbos Skydsgaard has observed mules that move freely in the vast olive groves throughout the summer. They seem to manage by gnawing grass between the trees and will go in search of human dwellings only when they need to drink. At the time of olive harvesting in winter, they find their proper task, that is, they are needed to bring back the picked olives, often from trackless sites. Therefore, if there is a problem concerning these animals, it does not seem to be feeding them, as for the greater part of the year they shift for themselves; rather it is the expense of acquiring them. The maintenance of a reasonably large stock of mules to undertake any odd job must have required a very deliberate programme of breeding elsewhere.
It is no wonder that the trade in animals, particularly draught-animals, as presupposed here, is seldom mentioned in our sources. In a brief article Grassl (1985a) has collected the most important references to sources concerning cattletrading, and, as was to be expected, by far the largest number concerns trade in sacrificial animals. These are also the main subject of Jameson’s contribution to the Congress in Bern (Jameson 1988): it is especially the large cultic centres that have need of a multitude of cattle of a high quality, but naturally local cults have also required animals. The epigraphic material from Delos shows that here there was an unusually large amount of cattle-keeping. This must be ascribed to the specific ready market for the shrine. Since this is a small island community, cattle-keeping becomes much more apparent. Owing to the much easier transport of animals over land, it has not attracted the same attention in other sanctuaries. The question of the gods and their cattle will be discussed later. The less conspicuous trade in smaller draught-animals has been of less interest in the sources, a phenomenon that shares the vicissitudes of fortune which apply to so many everyday events in antiquity.
Notes
78. Steier 1938, Olck 1907, Kraemer 1940, Orth 1921a, Orth 1921b, Richter 1972, Orth 1910, Orth 1913.
79. Whittaker 1988.
80. Richter 1930; Kozloff 1981; Kozloff/Mitten/Sguaitamatti 1986; Bevan 1986.
81. Bugh 1988. For another view on the harness see Raepsaet 1979 and Amouretti 1985a, 89–92
82. West 1978, 269. The two different interpretations are to be found in the Loeb edition and in the Budé edition
83. Greenfield 1988, see also Clutton-Brock/Grigson 1984.
84. For earlier studies of the embryo see the Hippocratic De Natura Peurorum, 29.
85. Coldstream 1977, 313. For birds in geometric miniature bronzes see Johansen 1982.
86. Jones/Graham/Sackett 1973.
87. Columella 6.1.3.
88. Snodgrass 1980, 35; further 1987, 188 ff.
89. Aristotle, Politics, 1256a
90. Transhumance is often discussed, see esp. Georgoudi 1974 and the discussion by Hodkinson 1988 and Skydsgaard 1988b.
91. Kouremenos 1985.
92. Cherry 1988.
93. Garnsey 1988b.
94. Hodkinson 1988, 38 ff.
95. Meiggs/Lewis 1969, no. 79 B.68–74.
96. Hodkinson 1988, 46.
97. Stanier 1953.
98. Tod 1948, no. 198.
99. In his speech against the corn-dealers Lysias mentions that they were not allowed to buy more than 50 phormoi. Unfortunately we do not know the measure, and it would be rather bold to assume that the phormoi were the baskets loaded upon a donkey or a mule.
100. The donkey-mill is probably a Hellenistic invention, Moritz 1958.
101. Phainippos is said to possess six donkeys transporting wood and giving the owner more than 12 drachmas every day (Demosthenes 42.7). This is considered an exaggeration by de Ste Croix 1966. For fuel to the manufacture of pottery see Hannestad 1988.
By Signe Isager and Jens Erik Skydsgaard in the book ' Ancient Greek Agriculture- An Introduction', Rouledge, London & New York, 2001, p. 83-107. Edited and adapted to be posted by Leopoldo Costa.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments...