Close Encounters of the Feathered Kind: Orpheus and the Birds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent text architecture. Solid methodology. Ability to explain complex concepts clearly. Relevant and comprehensive references and comparisons.

Excellent bibliographical references.

I would only suggest (if deemed appropriate) to add a reference to the hybrid figures of Neo-Assyrian palace reliefs. For example, the winged, eagle-headed genii in Neo-Assyrian art. In palatial reliefs they are part of the representation of the king's deeds and achievements. They are ancestral figures from Sumerian and Akkadian mythology. The fact that they appear in royal historiographical-celebratory reliefs is significant: they are a reference to the original mythological and religious world that formed the basis of the culture of the population at all levels of Neo-Assyrian society. However, they are also functional elements in the transmission of the dual message that celebrates the king as conqueror of peoples and regions, but also as peacemaker and orderer of chaos, representing the king's power even in the realm of the intangible (P. Matthiae, L’arte degli Assiri, Laterza: Roma-Bari 1996, fig. 2.3).

Author Response

A reference to a recent article about the symbolism of Neo-Assyrian reliefs, with Egyptian parallels, has been inserted.

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall this is an engaging and original paper, and should be published in a revised form. It is a problem that its stated goals (lines 75-79) do not align with the inclusion of astragali in the argument. There were many forms of divination in antiquity, and the author does not make a strong case for a particular parallelism between astragalomany and ornithomancy in terms of its relevance for the stories associating Orpheus with bird divination. Astragalomancy in Greece is much more closely related to the cults of Apollo and Artemis than to other deities, as the findspots demonstrate.

The evidence for hunting and consuming birds does not equate to divinatory practices (lines 93-98), but seems to be implied.  If the author wished to retain a focus on divination in Macedonia and Thrace from the 6th-4th c BCE, the data from the archaeological site at Pistiros is not sufficient to establish wider "entanglements" (what is the author's definition of "entanglements" and why in quotes?). A more thorough search for recently published data on bird bones in archaeological contexts would be in order.

On pages 14-18 it is not clear how (or if), for example, the Potnia Theron on the Rogozen jugs tells us anything about Orpheus. That it is an example of an "Indo-European" story found in the region of Bulgaria seems largely irrelevant to the stated aims of the paper. Likewise, the discussion of chickens in lines 115-128 is not sufficiently contextualized as an argument. Perhaps the author meant to refer to the later Etrusco-Roman practice of using domesticated chickens for divination, especially by magistrates? Lines 129-138 immediately change the focus from chickens to fantastic creatures and associated case studies. This is a dizzying switch of topic and direction of the argument. The paper also promises a discussion of the Egyptian ba bird (line 58), but fails to deliver adequately on that point.

I recommend a major revision of the paper that refocuses the arguments solely on Orpheus and birds, as this seems to have been the original aim of the paper and is a solid contribution to the scholarship on Orpheus. The astragali data and discussions are a distraction. An overview of divinatory practices at the beginning of the paper could include the pig astragalus from the archaeological site as the prompt for the author's interest in divination (as it currently does), but astragalomancy has no more apparent relevance to the interesting study of Orpheus and his connections with bird divination than do other types of divination.

For the severed head of Orpheus as divinatory, see also N. de Grummond, (2011). "A Barbarian Myth? The Case of the Talking Head." In Larissa Bonfante (Ed.), The Barbarians of Ancient Europe: Realities and Interactions (pp. 313- 345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Line 675 the title of the book is missing (Mixanthrôpoi, I assume): (Aston 2011) Aston, E. 2011. Liège: Liège : Centre International d'Étude de la Religion Grecque Antique.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The content of the paper has been extensively revised in order to make the argument clearer, more zooarchaeological data has been included, and the overall theme of Orpheus and birds underscored. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This was an interesting read and shows great competency with the bibliographies of many disciplines. But it is not a cohesive argument.  It is rather a collection of mini-essays that the author has not successfully woven into a coherent argument.  I did not get the sense that the author was following an outline here or, if they were, they did a poor job of linking up the pieces into a whole that carries out the goals set forth in the abstract. Note my comments throughout the text.  I have appended this as a pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I sense in places that English is not the author's first language. But I am impressed by their competency in it. The services of an experienced editor would be a good idea.

Author Response

I have responded to the specific remarks and comments in the text. The overall argument has been tightened and the theme of Orpheus and birds reinforced.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision improved some aspects of the paper, but did not improve others.  Adding more references, which were helpful, was offset by not being specific enough, e.g. Graf 2005 and Burkett 2005 (p. 11) do not specify pages.Even the welcome addition of de Grummond's discussion of the Rogozen jug is not well integrated into the argument: how does de Grummond's interpretation of the severed head add to the author's argument?

The central problem with the article remains unchanged in the revision: the author has not proved a connection between bird divination and astragali. This is not to say that an argument, at least a tentative one, cannot be made. The author's claim on p. 11 ("It seems clear 420 from textual sources that bird song and bird movement is connected to the throws of dice 421 or astragali (eg Eur. Phoen. 838; Burkert 2005; Graf 2005). This link between ‘astragalo-422 mancy’ and ‘ornithomancy’ has not been fully understood before, but it underscores the 423 connection between birds and divination by astagalomancy at the quotidian level") is not clearly supported by the three references cited. The word used in the Phoenissae is kleros, which is the general Greek word for a "lot," which may or may not include astragali.  I presume the Graf reference was to pages 63-64, where Graf refers briefly to the eagle of Zeus pertaining to one of the throws of astragaloi in the dice oracle texts from Anatolia. But the author of the present paper does not discuss this reference in any detail, so the import of the citation is unclear. The reference to Burkett's article remains enigmatic, since no page number(s) was (were) referenced and I could not find anything in the article to support the author's citation. That both are "everyday" types of divination seems a weak argument for connecting the archaeologically- sourced astragali with the image of the Siren and the archaeological-sourced bird bones whose purpose in their ancient context is not known. But even if that is the argument being made, its appearance on page 11 of the article makes for an argument that is difficult to follow--moving that argument to the beginning of the article would help the reader to understand better how the author is connecting the disparate objects from his/her excavations. I repeat my opinion that the article would be better served to reduce or eliminate the astragali portions so that the remainder could be better organized and refocused to illuminate the ancient connections between Orpheus and bird divination in this part of the world, which is a cogent and original contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Much improved. I recommend publication in this form.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. There are no changes suggested by the reviewer, so the version submitted is the version that I believe is recommended for publication.