> the word immolatio itself derives from the Indo-European root melh2− (‘to crush, to grind’): immolatio* is cognate with English ‘mill’. From this same root also derives the name for the mixture sprinkled on the animal before it was killed, mola salsa. The Romans were aware of the link, as is made clear by Paul. ex. Fest. 97L: ‘Immolare est mola, id est farre molito et sale, hostiam perspersam sacrare’ (‘To immolate is to make sacred a victim sprinkled with mola, that is, with ground spelt and salt’), a passage which also suggests that the link between immolatio and mola salsa was active in the minds of Romans in the early imperial period
This is a very strange way to make this argument. You don't need to link immolatio all the way back to an Indo-European root. And you certainly don't need a citation for the obvious, obvious claim that the link between the words mola and immolatio was known to the Romans -- of course it was known to the Romans, because that link exists entirely within the Latin language. Immolare is transparently nothing more than in+mola+[verb endings], and immolatio is the noun derived from immolare. Arguing that immolatio and mola are related because they both derive from the same root that existed thousands of years in the past is obtuse -- immolatio derives directly from mola. Even if the words were actually unrelated, the form of the word immolatio _guarantees_ that the Romans would perceive it as deriving from mola.
I'm afraid that anyone qualified to read this article was not informed by it. And anyone informed by it was not qualified to read it.
> Modern theorizations of sacrifice focus on animal victims, treating the sacrifice of vegetal substances, if they are considered at all, as an afterthought or simply setting vegetal offerings as a second, lesser ritual, ‘a substitution or a pale imitation’.
I was confused by the assumption that modern conceptions of sacrifice view it in one of two ways: as an exercise of violence for its own sake (??), or as a communal meal.
My first association with the concept of sacrifice is an offering or a trade: You give something to a spirit or god, and the spirit or god hopefully gives something back to you.
That is a very modern reinterpretation. Trade was a practice of more-or-less equals. One doesn't trade with gods, much as one doesn't trade with parents. One hopes to attract their favorable attention, and fears their ire or neglect.
"Holy Athena," she cried, "protectress of our city, mighty goddess, break the spear of Diomedes and lay him low before the Scaean gates. Do this, and we will sacrifice twelve heifers that have never yet known the goad, in your temple, if you will have pity upon the town, and on the wives and little ones of the Trojans." Thus she prayed, but Pallas Athena granted not her prayer.
(Iliad 6.305-311)
Direct offers to trade with the gods are common in classical mythology. (And, um, everywhere else, ancient or modern day, fiction or reality.) And I specified that a sacrifice was often just an offering. Trading is normal, but not required.
> much as one doesn't trade with parents
I mean, I guess I can agree with this. I take it you don't have kids?
It was Socrates' atheistic critique of contemporary definitions of piety to call this "trade" or "ἐμπορικὴ" in Euthyphro 14e.
And for an historical example, according to Xenophon [Xen. Anab. 3.2.10] the Athenians promised to sacrifice a goat to Artemis for every Persian killed at Marathon. This turned out to be 6,400 [Hdt. 6.117] and since they could not find enough goats, they instituted a yearly sacrifice of 500.
Although only a wag like Socrates would call this a direct trade with the goddess.
You would only need to do that if you read the sentence unnaturally as "There exist modern theorizations... which make such and such silly claim."
The natural reading is "Modern theorizations characteristically... make such and such silly claim", and you don't need to read any one in particular to know that that's false. You just need to be familiar with the field.
This is a very strange way to make this argument. You don't need to link immolatio all the way back to an Indo-European root. And you certainly don't need a citation for the obvious, obvious claim that the link between the words mola and immolatio was known to the Romans -- of course it was known to the Romans, because that link exists entirely within the Latin language. Immolare is transparently nothing more than in+mola+[verb endings], and immolatio is the noun derived from immolare. Arguing that immolatio and mola are related because they both derive from the same root that existed thousands of years in the past is obtuse -- immolatio derives directly from mola. Even if the words were actually unrelated, the form of the word immolatio _guarantees_ that the Romans would perceive it as deriving from mola.