Disability and Infanticide in Ancient Greece

Disability and Infanticide in Ancient Greece
Author(s): Debby Sneed

Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens ,
October-December 2021, Vol. 90, No. 4 (October-December 2021), pp. 747-772
Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2972/hesperia.90.4.0747
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2972/hesperia.90.4.0747?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
This content downloaded from

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
he s per ia 90 (2021) DISABILITY AND
Pages 747–772
INFANTICIDE IN
ANCIENT GREECE
A B S T R AC T
This article confronts the widespread assumption that disability, in any broad
and undefined sense, constituted valid grounds for infanticide in ancient
Greece. When situated within their appropriate contexts, the oft-cited pas-
sages from Plutarch, Aristotle, and Plato contribute little to our understanding
of the reality of ancient Greek practice in this regard. Other literary, material,
and bioarchaeological evidence, however, demonstrates that ancient Greek
parents, midwives, and physicians often took active and extraordinary mea-
sures to assist and accommodate infants born with a variety of congenital
physical impairments. It was neither legally mandated nor typical in ancient
Greece to kill or expose disabled infants, and uncritical (and unfounded)
statements to the contrary are both dangerous and harmful.
Classicists and interested members of the public generally agree that the
ancient Greeks engaged in infanticide or infant exposure.1 Scholars tend to
disagree on some of the details surrounding the practice, such as the extent
to which it was carried out and whether girls were more often victims than
1. Infanticide and exposure are dif- Thanks, too, to Kirk Ormand and the variously provided additional references,
ferent practices, though many scholars anonymous referees for the Winkler help with translations, comments on
use the terms interchangeably, with Prize for their encouragement of this drafts, and/or encouragement. Matthew
“exposure” often used euphemistically project. I am grateful for the many Peebles helped bring this manuscript
to mean “infanticide.” In the ancient conversations with Cynthia Patterson, to its final form, and I appreciate his
world, however, exposure may have whose comments and suggestions thoughtful attention to detail. Finally,
been seen as an alternative to infan- definitely improved my arguments. thanks to Jennifer Sacher for her
ticide (see Evans Grubbs 2011). At Susan Rotroff heard part of this paper patience, as well as to the anonymous
issue here is primarily infanticide—the and offered productive insights into reviewers of this article, whose thought-
active or passive killing of infants with my interpretation of feeding bottles. ful comments and suggestions strength-
no hope or expectation that they will Thank you to Anastasia Baran, Lesley ened it. This project was supported by
survive by the intervention of passersby. Beaumont, Annette Dukes, John the John J. Winkler Memorial Prize,
I am indebted to Sarah Morris, John Gibert, Katherine Harrington, Phil the Steinmetz Family Foundation, the
Papadopoulos, David Blank, Helen Holt, Sue Langdon, Mary McCla- Charlotte W. Newcombe Foundation,
Deutsch, and Gail Kennedy for their nahan, Marianna Nikolaidou, Katie the University of California Humani-
longstanding support and assistance Petrole, Scott Randolph, Ric Reverand, ties Research Institute, and the Cotsen
in the form of comments, suggestions, Jennifer Starkey, Hugh Thomas, Ioulia Institute of Archaeology. Unless other-
and assistance with the bibliography. Tzonou, and Trevor Van Damme, who wise noted, all translations are my own.
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
748 Debby Sneed
boys, but there is little debate about whether infants born with physical
impairments—what many would refer to as physical disabilities—were
killed or exposed at birth.2 In 1969, Germain warned that we must not
confuse the exposure of infants who were “normally formed” but not wanted
with those who were “physically unfit”: the exposure of the latter, he wrote,
was probably a longstanding practice.3 More recently, Garland argued that
“pressure to eliminate a congenitally deformed infant was fueled not only
by religious but also by practical considerations, since the rearing of such a
child is economically burdensome and unprofitable in the extreme.”4 State-
ments like these have elicited little controversy. The apparent willingness of
scholars to accept that infants born with physical impairments were unwanted
may result from a belief that an ancient economy based on subsistence
agriculture rendered any investment, emotional or otherwise, in apparently
nonproductive members impractical and therefore unlikely.5 A sensitive
reading of all available evidence, however, supports neither this conclusion
nor its premises. In this article, I use literary, material, and bioarchaeological
evidence to confront the assumption that ancient Greeks killed infants born
with congenital physical impairments (hereafter: “disabled infants”). We
cannot, of course, expect to determine a single perspective that was always
and everywhere relevant.6 The reconstruction of complex social practices is
often circumstantial. In this case, I argue that the weight of evidence indicates
that physical impairment or disability, broadly speaking, did not constitute
grounds for infanticide or exposure in ancient Greece.
The most familiar evidence used to argue that disabled infants were
killed or exposed at birth in ancient Greece is a set of passages from
Plutarch, Plato, and Aristotle.7 I first establish that these sources do not
represent realistic depictions of ancient Greek life. To be sure, I am not
2. Bonnard (2018) provides a long infanticide—which is not solely an severely disabled chimpanzee.
view of the debate, especially in non– ancient phenomenon—have been 7. One other text often invoked in
English language scholarship. Other studied in several different contexts. these debates is from the Gynecology of
good surveys of the practice include Oberman (2004), e.g., discusses modern Soranos of Ephesos, a physician working
Eyben 1980–1981; Oldenziel 1987; American infanticide. Anthropolo- in Rome in the 2nd century a.d. He
Boswell 1988; and Corbier 2001. More gists have amassed ethnographic case recommended that midwives should
focused discussions include van Hook studies that prove that reactions to and determine if infants were worth rearing
1920; Engels 1980; Golden 1981, 1988, treatments of infants vary consider- based on a variety of criteria, including
2015; Patterson 1985; Huys 1989; ably, not only across cultures but also their size and shape (Gyn. 2.10). Soranos
Haentjens 2000; and Beaumont 2012. within them (Hausfater and Hrdy may have been recommending a practice
For discussions specifically focused on 1984; Brewis 1992). Different groups of some antiquity, but we cannot with
exposing or killing physically impaired and societies make different decisions any certainty establish how far back
infants, see Schmidt 1983–1984; about whether to bear or rear a child, it originated, or even how common it
Edwards 1996; and Laes 2008. and these decisions are not specific to would have been. No contemporary 5th-
3. Germain 1969, p. 188. humans: infanticide has been traced in or 4th-century b.c. physician advocates
4. Garland 1995, p. 13. several mammalian taxa, including the such evaluations. Moreover, Soranos
5. Dettwyler (1991) discusses the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Zheng is far removed from Archaic, Classical,
modern assumption that people with et al. 2016) and the golden snub-nosed and even Hellenistic Greece, urging us
disabilities were inherently non- monkey (Yao et al. 2016), while other to question his relevance for the present
productive (in an economic sense) decisions, such as alloparenting (a sys- discussion. A dearth of contemporary
in ancient societies, as well as other tem of parenting in which parents other evidence should not lead us to col-
assumptions that contribute to the than the biological perform parental lapse chronological and geographical
interpretation of disabilities in the roles), are identified in Steller sea lions distances. See Evans Grubbs 2013 for a
paleopathological record as evidence of (Maniscalco et al. 2007) and Barbary discussion about the changing attitudes
“compassion.” macaques (Small 1990). See also Mat- toward infanticide and exposure during
6. Social perspectives on sumoto et al. 2016 for the parenting of a the Roman period.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
Disabil it y and Infant ic ide in Anc ient Gr eec e 749
the first to warn against reading these texts as descriptive, but the general
argument bears repeating in the present context. Next, I introduce a treatise
by a Hippocratic author that contradicts the picture painted by the more
familiar sources. As a complement to the literary testimony, I present mate-
rial evidence, in the form of ceramic feeding bottles, that points to active
assistance and accommodation for infants who were weak or ill, or who
were born with orofacial anomalies, such as certain cleft conditions. I also
discuss bioarchaeological evidence for possible reactions to and treatment of
disabled infants. Collectively, the evidence demonstrates that the exposure
or killing of disabled infants was not the rule in ancient Greece, even if we
cannot say categorically that it was never practiced.8
LI T ER A RY EV I D EN C E
In general, studies of infanticide in ancient Greece, regardless of its victims,

have relied heavily on literary accounts. For this reason, I begin by presenting
the evidence most often cited for the practice of killing disabled infants:
passages from Plutarch, Plato, and Aristotle. I argue that this evidence has
been misused in the construction of these arguments. It would be prefer-
able, I suggest, to give more weight to literary evidence from Hippocratic
physicians in our reconstructions of ancient practice around infanticide.
P lutar c h on S partan P rac t ic e

Probably the best-known passage about the ancient Greek practice of
killing disabled infants comes from Plutarch (ca. a.d. 46–after 120) in the
Roman period. What remains of Plutarch’s writings paints a picture of
an author very much steeped in contemporary social, political, and philo-
sophical concerns, as evident in his Lives, pseudo-biographical works about
prominent Greek and Roman men.9 Among his subjects is Lykourgos, a
semimythical Spartan lawgiver who may have lived sometime between
the 9th and 7th centuries b.c. According to Plutarch (Lyc. 16), Lykourgos
instituted strict laws, including one that required newborn infants be
taken to the so-called lesche, probably a public building, where a council of
elders examined them. If an infant proved to be firm and strong (εὐπαγὲς
εἴη καὶ ῥωμαλέον), the council would order that it be raised; if, however,
it were lowborn and “deformed” (ἀγεννὲς καὶ ἄμορφον), it would be sent
to the apothetai—a word that literally means “exposure places,” a pit-like
site at the base of Mt. Taygetos—“on the grounds that it is neither better
for themselves nor for the city [for the infant] to live its natural life poorly
equipped in terms of health and strength immediately from the beginning.”
This passage appears frequently in discussions of infanticide in the
8. For more on cultural responses ancient world. Garland claims that the Spartans “not only tolerated but
to disabled people at varying ages in actually demanded the exposure of malformed infants.”10 Elsewhere, he
ancient Greece, see Sneed 2018. argues that the Plutarch passage anticipates the “interest in eugenics which
9. See Mossman 1997 and Beck
nineteenth- and twentieth-century legislators have also manifested.”11 More
2014 for accessible insights into the
intellectual climate of Plutarch’s age. recently, ancient historians have been critical in their application of the so-
10. Garland 1985, pp. 81–82. called facts presented in Plutarch. Nevertheless, the story of the Spartans
11. Garland 1995, p. 14, n. 2. killing disabled infants persists: the 2012 version of a standard textbook on

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
750 Debby Sneed
the history of ancient Greece teaches students about the “official elimina-
tion of male infants” as described by Plutarch,12 and the most recent print
edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary lists Plutarch’s passage under its
entry on “deformity,” stating that “in Sparta, the abandonment of deformed
infants was a legal requirement.”13
Scholars continue to rely on Plutarch’s evidence on this subject because
we assume, among other things, that he had access to additional source mate-
rial on Lykourgos and his reforms beyond what survives for historians today.
And the story resonates because it fits well into our (mis?)understanding
of Spartan society as wholly dedicated to a martial ethos, one that carved
out no room for anyone who could not participate in the rigorous training
exercises for which the polis was famous.14 This assumption, however, proves
circular, as our idealized view of Sparta is largely shaped by this same text,
Plutarch’s Life of Lycurgus.15 Importantly, as Meeusen argues, Plutarch’s other
comments about Sparta, Spartan citizens, and disability suggest that “ancient
Spartan society was probably not as severe towards handicapped individuals
as the Lycurgus passage would suggest.”16 The Spartan king Agesilaos II, for
example, was impaired in his legs (χωλός) and notably short in stature, but
Plutarch gives no indication that these impairments in any way influenced
his character or ability to lead as a king.17 The figure of Agesilaos, then, along
with Plutarch’s other statements on disability, underlines the need to consider
the context of Plutarch’s introduction of this supposed Lykourgan law.18
Doran insists that Plutarch’s account is “extremely plausible” in its pre-
scription to dispose of children “thought of as unfit, a practice undoubtedly
intended to remove from the Spartiate breeding pool . . . children both with
hereditary disorders or simply considered ugly or awkward in appearance.”19
Still, the mid-7th-century b.c. Spartan poet Tyrtaios (fr. 12 West) explains
that it is not size, strength, or prowess in running or wrestling that makes a
man a good soldier but a strong and steadfast constitution, one that compels
him to stand firm in the face of gore or the advance of the enemy.20 This
can be considered alongside a tale recounted by Herodotos (6.61) regarding
the Spartan king Ariston. Ariston had no children by his first two wives, so
he married a third who was at that time the most beautiful woman in the
polis, though she had once been the ugliest (καλλίστη ἐξ αἰσχίστης). When
this woman was still a baby, her parents were ashamed of her ugliness and
forbade her nurse from showing her to anyone. Every day, the nurse took
the girl to the sanctuary of Helen at Therapne and beseeched the goddess
to remove the girl’s ugliness. One day, a female stranger asked to see the
baby. The nurse hesitated but eventually allowed the stranger to touch the
baby’s head, whereupon the stranger declared that the girl would become
12. Pomeroy et al. 2012, p. 182. 2012, p. ix.

13. OCD 4, pp. 423–424, s.v. Defor- 16. Meeusen 2016, p. 201.
mity (R. Garland). 17. See Meeusen 2016, p. 201.
14. See, e.g., Ollier’s two-volume 18. Meeusen 2016, p. 202.
Le mirage spartiate (1933, 1943), and 19. Doran 2017, p. 261.
more recently, Hodkinson and Morris 20. For an interpretation of this
2012, among others, for discussions of poem in relation to early Spartan mili-
the “Spartan mirage.” tary organization, see Luginbill 2002.
15. See Hodkinson and Morris

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
the most beautiful woman in Sparta. Congenital ugliness, then, may not
have been such a doomed fate after all.
The important point here is that we cannot know if the ancient Spar-
tans, of Lykourgos’s time or later, mandated the killing of disabled or ugly
infants. Plutarch lived more than 700 years after the Spartan lawgiver, and
he himself admits that “concerning Lykourgos the lawgiver, it is entirely
impossible to say anything that is undisputed” (Lyc. 1). Xenophon’s Consti-
tution of the Lacedaimonians, which Doran calls “the key text for Spartiate
eugenic practices,” does not mention this supposed law.21 It likewise does
not appear in Aristotle’s discussion of the Spartan constitution (Pol. 1269a–
1271b) despite that if such a law were on the books, Aristotle would likely
have highlighted it in order to bolster his own views on the matter (see
further, below).22 Plutarch’s own goal in his Lives, described in Life of
Alexander (1), was to give an impression of his subject’s soul rather than
to recount specific events or actions; this should preclude our reading of
the Life of Lycurgus as a straightforward account of historical fact. Finally,
a similar story—of a lawgiver so harsh as to require that certain infants
be killed straightaway at birth—is attributed to Romulus by Dionysius
of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 2.15) and to Sopeithes, an Indian king, by
Diodorus Siculus (17.91). These purported laws on rearing or not rearing
children, then, seem to belong primarily to the rhetoric of ancient moral
ethnography or history.23 We cannot make even tentative statements about
a Spartan proscription of disabled infants based on the testimony of the
Lives.24 Plutarch’s assertion that Lykourgos established such a law belongs
properly in discussions of his contributions to the “Spartan mirage” and of
1st- and 2nd-century a.d. Roman attitudes about disability and infanticide;
indeed, it adds to our appreciation of Plutarch’s literary goals and compli-
cated treatment of concepts like disability. It cannot, however, inform us
about actual Spartan practice.25
P l ato’s an d Ar i stot l e ’s U top ian Te x ts

Often invoked alongside Plutarch in reconstructions of the ancient Greek
practice of killing disabled infants are two passages by Plato (ca. 429–
347 b.c.) and Aristotle (ca. 384–322 b.c.). In the Republic, Plato outlines
his vision for a utopian society, describing not life as he knows it but life
as he would create it if he could. In book 5 (459a–461e), two interlocut-
ers, Sokrates and Glaukon, discuss good breeding practices. Sokrates asks
Glaukon if he breeds all his hunting dogs alike. Glaukon admits that he
breeds only the best animals, a practice that he says is best whether one is
talking about dogs or horses. Sokrates concurs and replies that the same is
true for humans; therefore, in an ideal state, rulers must devise means to
21. Doran 2017, p. 261. about using Plutarch’s Lycurgus as 25. On the “Spartan mirage,” see
22. See Boëldieu-Trevet 2018. evidence for an actual historical practice. n. 14, above. Meeusen (2016) provides
23. The wording of this argument Boëldieu-Trevet (2018) discusses Plu- an excellent start to our understand-
was provided by Cynthia Patterson tarch’s Lycurgus alongside other of the ing of just how Plutarch understood
(pers. comm.). author’s texts in her attempt to under- disability, a concept that is present
24. See Huys 1996. Germain stand Spartan conceptions of bodily throughout most, if not all, of his writ-
(1969) also expressed reservations infirmity and its place in Spartan society. ings.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
752 Debby Sneed
breed only the best women and men and to discourage the inferior from
reproducing. More than that, Sokrates goes on, there must be authorities
enfranchised to take the offspring of “good parents” and raise them, but
“the [children] from inferior parents, and if any [child] from other parents
is impaired (ἀνάπηρον), will be hidden away in a secret and unknown place,
as is fitting” (Resp. 460c). Sokrates does not explicitly advocate infanticide
here, and his discussion is not limited to disabled infants, but he does say
that these infants should be hidden away. Some scholars suggest that Plato
is being euphemistic, implying infanticide without actually articulating it.26
Similar language in his dialogue Timaeus (19a), however, suggests that we
should read the Republic literally: in Plato’s ideal state, the children of the
lower classes and disabled children should be hidden away and denied
enfranchisement and a social existence.
The issue becomes somewhat more complicated when we consider an-
other Platonic dialogue, the Theaetetus (160e–161a). Here, Plato’s Sokrates
famously assumes the role of a midwife and helps his companion give birth to
an argument. Sokrates insists that the infant-argument should be examined,
just as a child would be at the amphidromia (a formal ceremony that initi-
ates an infant into its family), to see if it is not “worth rearing” (οὐκ ἄξιον
ὂν τροφῆς τὸ γιγνόμενον). He interrogates his companion to find out if he
will demand that his infant-argument be reared and not “put out”—that is,
exposed (ἀποτιθέναι)—or if he will abide its being taken away. The meta-
phorical use of infanticide or exposure supports an awareness of the social
practice, but nowhere does the dialogue establish evaluative criteria.27 We
cannot, therefore, assume that the analogy of the infant/argument—what
Plato calls the “wind-egg and imposture” (ἀνεμιαῖόν τε καὶ ψεῦδος), that
is, something that is not fully formed and false—is, in fact, disabled.
Like Plato in the Republic, Aristotle constructs an ideal society in his
Politics. In Aristotle’s utopia (Pol. 1335a5–7), measures should be taken
“in order that the bodies of offspring adhere to the wish of the lawgiver.”
To ensure this, Aristotle (Pol. 1335a11–19) prescribes the best ages for
humans to reproduce, saying that the children of too-young parents often
have bodies that are imperfect (ἀτελεῖς) and small (μικροῖ). Moreover,
citizens of Aristotle’s ideal city should study the works of physicians and
natural philosophers so that they may know the best time of the year to
give birth. Pregnant women should take care of their bodies, avoiding
exercise, eating adequately, and visiting the sanctuaries of deities who are
concerned with childbirth. Aristotle then asserts (Pol. 1335b20–22): “And
concerning the exposure or raising of offspring, let there be a law to raise
no impaired [infant] (μηδὲν πεπηρωμένον τρέφειν).” Aristotle here clearly
advocates exposing or killing disabled infants. But to what extent can we
say that contemporary Greeks were indeed acting as Aristotle envisioned
his ideal citizens would? That he is compelled to include such explicit
statements suggests, to the contrary, that the practice was not a matter of
course in Aristotle’s Greece.
Aristotle is less eugenic in his other treatises. In the History of Animals
26. See, e.g., Patterson 1985, p. 113;
(587a20–24), for example, the philosopher describes infants who appear Adam 1969 ad 460c (p. 299).
stillborn but are “merely weak.” In these cases, he explains, experienced 27. See Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder
midwives resuscitate them by squeezing blood from inside the umbilical 2018, p. 120.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
cord, where it is stuck, back into the infant’s body. In another passage
(Hist. an. 581b22–23), he discusses boys who are congenitally impotent
and sterile because they are maimed in their genitals, a condition that is at
least potentially visible at birth. Furthermore, he observes (Hist. an. 585b30)
that disabled infants can be born from disabled parents but that sometimes
children born of disabled parents are themselves nondisabled; therefore,
he argues, there is no special rule about disabled parents reproducing
(Hist. an. 585b36–586a1). These passages demonstrate that Aristotle is not
univocal on the issue of disability and that the sentiments he expresses in
his Politics should be understood as prescriptive, not descriptive.
Apparently, both Plato and Aristotle do not value the lives and potential
contributions of certain infants and would, if they could, ordain that they be
denied a social or even biological existence. But as many scholars have pointed
out, and as van Niekerk Viljoen summarizes, “what Plato stipulates here for
his eutopia may not be used as evidence for the practice in contemporary
Athens.”28 Even in the Roman Republic we can see an emphasis on the gap
between utopia and reality, as when Cicero (Att. 2.1.8, referred to in Plut.
Phoc. 3) criticizes Cato the Younger for acting as if he lives in Plato’s utopian
city and not in the slums of Romulus. Neither Plato’s nor Aristotle’s utopian
text describes its author’s own contemporary society. Instead, these treatises
outline the philosophers’ visions for perfect societies. The cited passages can
tell us about Plato’s and Aristotle’s respective philosophical ideals, but they
cannot directly reflect 4th-century b.c. Greek practices.
H ip p o c rat ic O n J o i n t s
The most familiar texts used as evidence for ancient Greek practice with
respect to disabled infants, then, are flawed as sources: Plato and Aristotle
because of the utopian nature of their works, and Plutarch because of his
distance from Archaic and Classical Sparta. I am not aware of any other
literary (especially non-mythological) evidence used to support the argu-
ment that the ancient Greeks killed or exposed disabled infants.29 We are,
fortunately, not without other literary recourse. The Corpus Hippocraticum,
or Hippocratic Corpus, is a collection of independent treatises written by
anonymous physicians between the second half of the 5th century b.c. and
the end of the Hellenistic period; most of the texts date to the late 5th and
4th centuries b.c. No Hippocratic physician explicitly states whether parents
should kill or raise a disabled infant. At least one text, however, suggests
that a physician’s hope to do no harm (Hippoc. Epid. 1.11) extended, too,
to infants. The work On Joints was written in the late 5th or early 4th cen-
tury b.c. as a practical manual.30 The physician includes instructions for
treating various dislocations and fractures, whether congenital or acquired.
In an oft-cited passage (Hippoc. Art. 12), the physician discusses pa-
tients who are born with a particular kind of limb difference:
28. Van Niekerk Viljoen 1959, p. 63; Oedipus’s ankles were pierced after his
see also Rose 2003, p. 34. parents decided to expose him; they did
29. Some point to the story of Oedi- not expose him because of his ankles.
pus, who was disabled in his feet. But 30. See Jouanna 1992, pp. 539–540.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
754 Debby Sneed
χρέεσθαι μέντοι τῇ χειρὶ δυνατώτατοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐκ γενεῆς γαλιάγκω-

νες, οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνοί γε ἀνατεῖναι παρὰ τὸ οὖς τὸν βραχίονα
ἐκτανύσαντες τὸν ἀγκῶνα δύνανται, ἀλλὰ πολὺ ἐνδεεστέρως ἢ
τὴν ὑγιέα χεῖρα . . . ὅταν μέντοι ὀδυνώμενοι παύσωνται, ὁκόσα μὲν
δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι ἐπαίροντας τὸν ἀγκῶνα ἀπὸ τῶν πλευρέων ἐς τὸ
πλάγιον, ταῦτα μὲν οὐ δύνανται ἅπαντα ὁμοίως ἐργάζεσθαι· ὁκόσα
δὲ δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι, παραφέροντας τὸν βραχίονα παρὰ τὰς πλευράς,
ἢ ἐς τοὐπίσω ἢ ἐς τοὔμπροσθεν, ταῦτα δὲ δύνανται ἐργάζεσθαι·
καὶ γὰρ ἂν ἀρίδα ἑλκύσαιεν καὶ πρίονα, καὶ πελεκήσαιεν ἄν, καὶ
σκάψαιεν ἄν, μὴ κάρτα ἄνω αἴροντες τὸν ἀγκῶνα, καὶ τἄλλα ὅσα
ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων σχημάτων ἐργάζονται.
Those who are weasel-armed from birth are, of course, able to use
their weasel-arm, though they really can’t stretch the [affected] arm
up by the ear after they extend their elbow, but [the affected arm]
is inferior to the healthy arm . . . still, whenever they stop feeling
pain, as many tasks as it is necessary to perform by raising the
elbow outward from the sides, they aren’t able to do these things
in the same way [as before]; but as many tasks as it is necessary
to perform by swinging the arm along the side, either backward
or forward, they are able to perform them. For they could draw a
bow-saw or a saw, and they could swing an axe, and they could dig
without much raising up their elbow, and they perform as many
other tasks as are done from the same sort of posture.
People with this congenital limb difference, then, may not be able to per-
form all the same kinds of tasks or execute them in the same ways as those
without a similar impairment of the arm or elbow, but they can carry out
a number of physical tasks just as easily or with slight modifications. The
author continues this line of thought, describing how physical therapy can
contribute to the development of the affected arm, and as far as “handicrafts”
(literally, “tasks of the arms”) are concerned, “the weasel-armed perform
most of them eagerly with that arm . . . and the affected arm is not at all
inferior to the unimpaired one” (Art. 53). We can infer at least two things
from these passages. First, the physician is describing patients who work for
a living. By mentioning tools associated with physical labor and handicrafts,
he surely intends to refer to people who would use such tools and engage in
such industries. This is not a leisure class of patient—a group of people who
might, in economic terms, be able to afford a disability more easily. Second,
the physician does not see these infants as “unprofitable in the extreme” as
a result of their congenital limb difference. He does not recommend infan-
ticide, nor does he resign disabled infants to a life of indolence and poverty.
Rather, in this treatise written for his colleagues, he addresses their abilities.
When he reaches the lower body, the physician who authored On
Joints (62) describes individuals with congenital clubfoot (ὁκόσοι ἐκ γενεῆς
κυλλοὶ γίνονται).31 Today, clubfoot—a condition affecting the foot and ankle
31. See also Hippoc. Mochlicon 32, (κυλλώσιος γὰρ οὐχ εἷς ἐστὶ τρόπος)
in which the author specifies that there and describes the treatment of the
is “more than one kind of clubfoot” condition.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
that causes an infant’s foot to turn inward or downward—is the most common
congenital impairment, occurring in about one or two out of every 1,000 live
births; it is not surprising, therefore, that an ancient physician encountered
it as well.32 The physician affirms that these cases are mostly curable and
outlines a full treatment of the condition, which he stresses should begin as
soon as possible after birth. The treatment is not a simple one, as it requires
adjustments, rotations, bindings, and bandaging. Once the clubfoot is cured
or treated, the patient should wear specialized shoes—what he calls “mud
shoes” (αἱ πηλοπατίδες), which have thick soles that provide additional support
to the heel; also acceptable, he says, are so-called Cretan shoes (ὁ κρητικὸς
τρόπος τῶν ὑποδημάτων), which are reinforced under the soles with a strap.
Interestingly, the physician’s regimen for clubfoot is not so different from
nonsurgical treatments for the same condition in the modern period.33
Physicians in ancient Greece did not typically assist in childbirth, nor
were they involved in decisions regarding its procedures.34 If the physician-
author of On Joints encountered and was able to develop such a lengthy
treatment plan for clubfoot, then parents and midwives must have consulted
him about infants born with the condition. From this we can infer not
only that parents and midwives were unsure about what to do—that is,
there was no obvious, culturally or legally prescribed course of action—but
also that physicians did not automatically recommend infanticide in such
cases. Indeed, in none of the surviving sources do ancient Greek physicians
recommend killing disabled infants.
Other Hippocratic physicians discuss patients with congenital impair-
ments or disabilities, including (perhaps) those born with cleft conditions.
In Epidemics 6 (1.2), for example, a physician describes people with “pointed
heads” (οἱ φοξοί). If these people have strong necks, he writes, they tend to
be strong elsewhere, including in their bones. If, however, they tend to have
headaches and runny ears, then their palates are hollow (ὑπερῷαι κοῖλαι) and
teeth overlapping (ὁδόντες παρηλλαγμένοι). Elsewhere (Hippoc. Epid. 6.1.3;
see also Epid. 4.19 and Mochlicon 39), the same physician describes “those
whose bone separates from the palate,” which causes their noses to sit “in
the middle” (ὁκόσοισιν ὀστέον ἀπὸ ὑπερῴης ἀπῆλθε, τούτοισι μέση ἵζει
ἡ ῥίς); for those whose palate separation occurs “where the teeth are, their
nose is upturned” (οἷσιν ἔνθεν οἱ ὀδόντες ἄκρη σιμοῦται). These passages
describe not only cleft conditions but also concomitant facial effects that bear
similarities to those associated with the conditions in the modern period.
32. See Anand and Sala 2008. I am 1971, p. 52). Similar conditions are, 34. Physicians could, indeed, be
not aware of any skeletal remains from however, known from other literary present for births: the author of Dis-
the Archaic, Classical, or Hellenistic sources: the Olympian god Hephais- eases 1, e.g., discusses instances “when
periods that indicate an individual tos’s lower body impairment often you must deliver a woman that is giving
with congenital clubfoot, but Angel appears in artistic representations (see, birth” (Hippoc. Morb. 1.5) and provides
(1971, p. 55) identified a skeleton from e.g., Seeberg 1965; Halm-Tisserant instructions for cases when “a physician
Middle Bronze Age Lerna (122 Ler) 1986; Smith 2009; Brennan 2016), and gives anything to a woman in childbed
belonging to an adolescent male, about a whole series of vases from the Archaic for the pain in her belly” (Hippoc.
15 years old, who had a “striking defor- period shows male figures with clubfeet Morb. 1.8). It seems, however, that this
mity of the left foot”; he identified this or some other kind of impairment in was not common and that instead,
as clubfoot. Another skeleton (127 Ler), their lower legs and feet (see Ziskowski parents relied on midwives during
that of a 45-year-old man, might have 2012). childbirth.
exhibited the same condition (Angel 33. See Dobbs et al. 2000, p. 59.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
756 Debby Sneed
The author of the Hippocratic Eight-Month’s Child discusses infants

born after having become ill during the eighth month in utero. After these
children are born and survive for 40 days in their impaired state, they
become visibly stronger and more perceptive, responding to light more
clearly and hearing noises that they previously could not (Hippoc. Περί
οκταμήνου 9). Other infants, the author continues, are born with percep-
tion in their bodies and are thus capable of laughing and crying spontane-
ously; the impaired infants, however, do not respond to being touched or
provoked before the conclusion of the first 40 days. These eight-month’s
children, he reports, have a high rate of mortality, but his entire treatise is
dedicated to presenting their case as not entirely hopeless. Nowhere does
he suggest that they are not worth rearing. Throughout the Hippocratic
treatises, in fact, physicians describe congenital conditions and illnesses
neutrally, just as they do other run-of-the-mill conditions and illnesses
such as baldness and fevers.
Hippocratic physicians treated a variety of patients throughout the
Greek-speaking world from the 5th century b.c. onward. They wrote down
their experiences, ideas, and arguments, many of which provide insights into
contemporary medical and philosophical thought. That their ideas about
health and the body were not considered eccentric is demonstrated by the
purchase such ideas had in other genres of literature, including tragedy—
most notably in the works of Sophokles—and history.35 Thucydides, for
example, is clearly enmeshed in a similar system of thought as the Hip-
pocratics when he has the Athenian general Nikias say (6.14) that the
city’s administrators are like physicians in their city. As their virtue, Nikias
declares, administrators must do their country as much good as they can,
or at least no harm—a phrasing familiar to many as a part of the modern
Hippocratic Oath, though it comes from a different Hippocratic treatise
(Epid. 1.11). Hippocratic physicians worked with actual patients, and
many of the texts in the corpus can be understood as reflecting practical
experience. Because of this experience and the established currency of their
thought, their work should be given more authority on this topic than
has previously been granted, especially when weighed against the abstract
idealizations of Plato and Aristotle.
35. See, e.g., Allan 2014, esp. p. 273,

M AT ER I A L EV I D EN C E : F EED I N G B O T T LE S n. 55, about Sophokles’ use of medical
ideas in his tragedies.
Literary evidence alone shows, at a minimum, that ancient Greeks did 36. This vessel is known by many
not prescribe death to disabled infants. This is not to say that infanticide names in a variety of languages (e.g.,
θήλαστρον in Greek, poppatoio in Ital-
was never practiced or that disabled infants were never its victims. Rather, ian, Saugflasche in German, dječje bočice
we do not have evidence for the specific practice, and the evidence in in Croatian, and biberon in French), and
fact points to the opposite: that parents, midwives, and physicians took it is often difficult to identify the vessel
extraordinary efforts to assist disabled infants. This argument is bolstered from excavation reports without an
by material evidence, specifically in the form of ceramic feeding bottles.36 accompanying image. Despite its many
names in English, I prefer “feeding
These specialized vessels suggest—strongly, in my view—that ancient
bottle.” I object to the use of “invalid
Greeks accommodated and cared for infants who were born with illnesses, cup” given the offensiveness of the term
conditions, or physical impairments that made it difficult for them to “invalid” when referring to disabled
breastfeed. people.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
Figure 1. Feeding bottle from the

so-called Bone Well (well G 5:3)
in the Athenian Agora. 3rd or early
2nd century b.c. Athens, Agora
Excavations P 13498. Scale 1:2. Photo
C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora Excavations
For m an d Di st r i b u t ion
Feeding bottles were created as early as the Late Bronze Age and continued
well into the Roman era, but I focus specifically on those produced from the
Early Iron Age through the Hellenistic period, in line with my discussion
of ancient Greek cultural practices. During this time, feeding bottles were
deposited primarily in the tombs of infants and small children. A feed-
ing bottle is a short, rounded cup with a relatively narrow mouth; a long,
narrow spout; and a handle positioned 90 degrees around the body from
the spout. A 3rd- or 2nd-century b.c. example from the Athenian Agora
(Fig. 1) is representative of the general form.37 As this example illustrates,
these vessels are made primarily of terracotta and can be either decorated
or black glazed.38
In the Late Bronze Age, we find a great number of feeding bottles
throughout the Hellenic world, and it is during this time that the form ap-
pears to have become “standardized.”39 It was in the Late Bronze Age, too,
that feeding bottles begin to be associated with infant and child burials in
chamber tombs.40 In the later periods under discussion here, they are found
primarily in pot burials (ἐγχυτρισμοί) of infants under the age of about one
year.41 Exceptions to this pattern are few and do not contradict the general
association of feeding bottles with the graves of infants and children.42 The
numbers and distribution of the vessels grow through time: 4th-century b.c.
37. Agora P 13498: H. 6.0; (milk, whether human or animal, and Exceptions include fragments of
Diam. 7.5 cm. Originally published in medicines), suggesting that the glass seven spouts of the Late Minoan IIIB
Agora XXIX, p. 358, no. 1195, fig. 73, bottles performed similar functions. period found in nonfunerary contexts
pl. 87. 39. See Pomadère 2007, p. 271. in Chania on Crete (Hallager and
38. From the Late Bronze Age Prehistoric vessels labeled as feeding Hallager 2003, p. 227). Other pos-
through the 1st century b.c., feeding bottles, such as those from Phase III sible exceptions include fragments of
bottles seem to have been made solely (Dikili Tash) levels at Sitagroi in north- similar vessels (see Furumark 1941:
of terracotta, but numerous examples ern Greece (ca. 3800 to 2700 b.c.) are Furumark shapes FS 159–FS 162)
of glass are known from the Roman excluded from this discussion, as they discovered in the excavations of the
period (McFadden 1946, p. 475; do not match later examples in form or palace at Pylos (Blegen and Rawson
Whitehouse 1997, p. 150; Štefanac distribution (Renfrew, Gimbutas, and 1966, p. 379), but these are too big
2009). The glass examples have similar Elster 1986, p. 181). to be considered in the same class of
forms and findspots, and chemical 40. Pomadère 2007, p. 279. vessel as feeding bottles intended for
analyses show that they held the same 41. Golden 2015, p. 15. infants.
liquids as their terracotta counterparts 42. See Pomadère 2007, p. 280.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
758 Debby Sneed
Figure 2. Terracotta figurine from

Boiotia, showing a female figure
extending a feeding bottle toward
a nude male infant. The female
figure holds a cloth or rag in her
left hand. Early 5th century b.c.
Geneva, Musée d’art et d’histoire
A 2003-0011/dt. Not to scale. Photos
A. Longchamp; © Musée d’art et d’histoire,
Ville de Genève
examples are known from the Greek mainland, Rhodes, the Black Sea region,
Asia Minor, Palestine, Cyrenaica, and the Iberian Peninsula.43
Feeding bottles belong to the world of infants and small children,
but they are not part of the typical accoutrement of infancy. First, they
are found almost exclusively in burial contexts, not in contexts of use or
disposal. Second, their distribution is wide, but within any given cemetery
they are relatively rare, recognized by archaeologists more by their unusual
form than by their ubiquity.44 At Pydna in northern Greece, for example,
feeding bottles were present in fewer than 10% of infants’ graves in the
first half of the 4th century b.c. and fewer than 5% of infants’ graves in
the second half of the same century.45 We know that at least some feeding
bottles were used before they were deposited in tombs, as the tooth marks
on the spouts of some examples attest.46 An early 5th-century b.c. figurine
from Boiotia in central Greece (Fig. 2) shows how these bottles may have
been used.47 It depicts a female figure supporting a male infant on her lap.
In her right hand is a feeding bottle, which she holds up to the mouth of
the infant. In her left hand, she holds an object that has been identified as
a folded rag for wiping up any spilled liquid.48
43. See Kern 1957, p. 21. In Roman-period workshops are not pot- 45. See Kotitsa 2012, p. 84.
the Roman period, feeding bottles ters’ tools, but instead represent episodic 46. The best-known example of a
continue to be found primarily in production in those workshops (Pastor used bottle is now in Oxford (Ash-
burials, but they are also found in pot- 2010, p. 246). molean Museum 1924.66). Millions
tery workshops, especially in Roman 44. See Blondé and Villard 1992, (2021; pers. comm.) cites another
Gaul (Rouquet and Loridant 2000, p. 107. In Agora XXIX (p. 183), e.g., example of a feeding bottle with evi-
p. 427; Pastor 2010, p. 246). Based Rotroff notes that feeders are “not well dence of teething marks on the spout,
on a series of experiments related to represented in the Hellenistic pottery this one from Stavros in Thessaly.
the rate of flow through the narrow assemblage at the Agora or elsewhere.” 47. Geneva, Musée d’art et
spout and on chemical analyses of the A thorough discussion of these bottles d’histoire A 2003-0011/dt: H. 9.9 cm.
vessels’ contents, however, it is safe to confirms their rarity (Liston, Rotroff, 48. Gourevitch and Chamay 1992,
say that vessels of this form found in and Snyder 2018, pp. 98–100). p. 79.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
F unc t ion
Scholars have suggested different purposes for feeding bottles. Gourevitch
and Pomadère argue that they were used exclusively as aids for weaning
infants who were old enough to ingest solid foods, not for newborns who
would instead be breastfeeding.49 Sommer and Sommer, on the other
hand, contend that the vessels provided an alternative to breastfeeding for
newborns and young infants, akin to modern baby bottles.50 Dubois and
Pomadère support a symbolic dimension for feeding bottles, citing min-
iature versions like those found in the prehistoric tomb of twins at Jebel
Moya in Nubia.51 Bouffier goes a step further to assert that feeding bottles
were exclusively symbolic, never functional, especially when they appear
in the tombs of infants younger than the age of weaning, in which cases
they would symbolize the deceased’s failure to achieve that particular rite
of passage.52 Finally, some scholars identify the vessels as ancient breast
pumps used by the nursing woman to draw out her milk, which could then
be fed to an infant from the same vessel.53
Gourevitch and Chatzidakis argue that feeding bottles could not and
did not contain milk products because of issues with sanitation.54 Sabetai, on
the other hand, maintains that the vessels regularly contained milk, referring
to the results of chemical analyses performed on an example from a Late
Classical (4th-century b.c.) necropolis at Taras (Taranto) that revealed traces
of milk products.55 Gourevitch discusses 27 terracotta and 13 glass feeding
bottles, from diverse sites, that contained traces of a combination of acids
(comprising palmitic, myristic, stearic, lauric, and capric acids) found only
in milk, whether human or animal.56 She dismisses this as evidence for the
practical use of these vessels, however, arguing that any milk was placed in
them at the time of their deposition as a symbolic reference to lost infancy and
childhood. Pomadère accepts that feeding bottles could have contained both
milk and non-milk products; she notes that residue analyses on an example
from Roman Gaul showed that it contained milk, but another example from
Late Bronze Age Midea in the Peloponnese contained beeswax or honey
and something fermented (mead or beer?).57 Pomadère as well as Sommer
and Sommer argue that the vessels’ association with tombs is best explained
by the way in which they were used during life: a lack of proper sanitation
probably caused spoiled or fermented milk in the spout to transmit dangerous
microbes to infants, leading to diarrhea and, ultimately, the infants’ deaths.58
Ancient authors provide little help with identifying the use of feeding
bottles. Only one Hippocratic author (Morb. 3.16) mentions a specialized
drinking vessel, what he calls a narrow-mouthed bombylios (βομβυλιός). It
is unclear, however, if this refers to the type of feeding bottle in question
49. Gourevitch and Chamay 1992; 53. See Noll 1936; Gourevitch 1990; 56. Gourevitch and Chamay 1992,
see also Pomadère 2007. Rouquet and Loridant 2003; Obladen p. 80; for the study, see Huttmann et al.
50. Sommer and Sommer 2015, 2012. Obladen (2012) actually describes 1988.
pp. 64–65. the mechanism by which these vessels 57. Pomadère 2007, p. 278; see also
51. Dubois 2013; see also Pomadère would function as breast pumps. Rouquet 2004.
2007. The Jebel Moya bottles are cited 54. Gourevitch and Chamay 1992; 58. Pomadère 2007, p. 280; Sommer
in Lacaille 1950. Chatzidakis 2004, pp. 372–373. and Sommer 2015, p. 54.
52. Bouffier 2012, pp. 139–140. 55. Sabetai 2000, p. 509.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
760 Debby Sneed
here, as he does not describe its more general form.59 The word appears
in an early 3rd-century b.c. inscription from a sanctuary on the island of
Delos, where it is listed along with more familiar vessel shapes, such as
the dinos, psykter, and pelike.60 The word itself is rare in Greek, especially
in this usage. Its better-known meaning—bumblebee—evokes a feeding
bottle, given the vessel’s rounded body, its handle curved like a wing, and its
long, narrow spout, which resembles a bee’s stinger. The connection between
the word bombylios and feeding bottles is speculative, and almost too cute,
but it is certainly tempting. Soranos of Ephesos, who lived at a time when
feeding bottles were still in use, refers to an artificial nipple that permits
infants to draw liquid slowly and without risk (Gyn. 2.17); this shows that
the concept of such an aid existed. He does not, however, call this artificial
nipple a bombylios, and he does not go into detail about its form.
We may never be able to identify a single function for feeding bottles,
as is the case for the objects of material culture generally. It is clear, however,
that these vessels, whatever they were called in the ancient world, were used
with milk and potentially also with non-milk medicinal products. Their
relative rarity discourages us from considering them as general-use cups;
they are, rather, vessels produced for a specific and uncommon purpose.
They are found with both newborns and young children,61 suggesting that
they were not intended to be used exclusively either for breastfeeding or
for weaning. When associated with adults, their function may likewise be
assistive.62 Paschalidis describes an instance of a feeding bottle buried with
an adult man at the Mycenaean cemetery at Achaia Clauss;63 this man was
one of the cemetery’s oldest, and Paschalidis suggests that the bottle may
have been used to help feed him as he experienced a variety of age-related
impairments—including extensive antemortem tooth loss, which would
have made it difficult for him to eat solid foods.
As noted earlier, extant literary references to feeding bottles, or ves-
sels intended to function similarly, are in medical texts; this supports an
interpretation of these objects as satisfying a health-related need, one that
was apparently—based on whom they were buried with—more likely to
affect newborns, infants, and small children.
Cont e xts of Us e
Taken together, the archaeological and literary evidence suggests a particular
context of use for feeding bottles, one in which the individuals who used
59. This word is sometimes used of bombylios in this list does not help à Marseille, which included a feed-
to refer to what I call here “feeding us identify the vessel as our feeding ing cup (Moliner 2012). For young
bottles” (see Ure 1934). Blondé and bottle, but its association here with children, two feeding bottles, e.g., were
Villard (1992) argue that this bombylios other kinds of vessels might suggest found in the tomb (tomb 12) of a four-
is the same as our “feeding bottle.” that it is not. Bombylios is used to refer or five-year-old at the Late Geometric
60. IG XI.2 154, face A, lines 68–69, to a drinking cup in other sources (e.g., Heroon in Eretria; see Blandin 1998,
dated to ca. 296 b.c. It is unclear if the Ath. 11.784d), but these sources are pp. 142–144.
vessels in question were made of metal equally vague and are too late to pro- 62. Mariaud (2012, p. 30) lists
or terracotta. These other vessels are vide evidence for much earlier practices. three examples found in adult graves at
usually associated with wine-drinking 61. On newborns, see, e.g., the Ephesos, Chios, and Samos.
and bear no exclusive relationship burial of a perinatal infant (T118) in 63. Paschalidis 2018, pp. 401–402.
with infants or children. The presence the Greek necropolis at Sainte-Barbe

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
them were at an unusually high risk of death. This category comprises infants,
children, and adults who were ill or impaired in such a way that ingesting
liquids by other means—whether a breast for newborns or open-mouthed
drinking vessels (namely, cups) for children and adults—was not possible.
Among this group of individuals that could have been aided by feeding
bottles, I argue, were infants born with cleft conditions or other orofacial
anomalies. Several scholars have proposed specifically that cleft conditions
would have doomed an infant to death. Laes, for example, suggests that
parents would likely have reacted adversely to “a little girl . . . with a cleft
lip, with the almost certain prospect of never being able to marry her off.”64
Garland cites infants with cleft palates as his only example of “infants
exhibiting gross abnormalities” who were “exposed immediately,” though
he offers no evidence to support the claim.65
In the modern period, cleft conditions (cleft lip, cleft lip with palate,
cleft palate) constitute the most common congenital anomaly of the face
and the second most common developmental anomaly overall, following
clubfoot.66 Besides their potential aesthetic disruption, cleft conditions can
cause other challenges for infants. An infant with a cleft lip can achieve
closure around a nipple with simple assistance from a parent laying a finger
across the gap. A cleft palate, however, opens the oral and nasal cavities to one
another and can prevent an infant from creating enough negative pressure
(that is, by sucking) to extract milk from a nipple.67 Risk factors for infants
born with cleft conditions include not only malnutrition and undernutrition
but also infections. What is more, cleft conditions are often accompanied
by additional congenital anomalies. As a result, infants born with cleft
conditions have relatively higher mortality rates: a study of 638 children
born with orofacial clefts (conducted in England in 2002–2010) showed
that children born with a cleft palate had a mortality rate 15 times higher
than the average for children born without a cleft palate.68
It is reasonable to assume not only that cleft conditions were at least
as common in the past as they are today but also that the mortality rate of
infants born with them in antiquity was much higher, given the limitations
of contemporary medical knowledge and practice, as well as ignorance
about sterilization and contaminants. Cleft conditions, however, are not
necessarily a death sentence in the absence of modern medicine: skeletal
remains from a pastoralist cemetery in Altai, Russia, radiocarbon-dated
to 1883–1665 cal b.c., have been identified as a young man, aged 18 to
23 years, with a cleft condition—specifically, a complete bilateral cleft of the
primary palate.69 His cleft affected not just his palate but also his dentition
and nasal bones (Fig. 3:a, b). Facial reconstruction based on the man’s skull
reveals how visible his condition may have been (Fig. 3:c). Despite problems
that his cleft palate likely caused, he lived into adulthood and was taller
64. Laes 2008, p. 98. 2016, pp. 4–12. shown to increase the risk of death for
65. Garland 1995, p. 13. 67. Reid, Reilly, and Kilpatrick adults up to age 55 (Christensen et al.
66. See Conderman 2016, p. 167. 2007. A cleft palate, by itself, is not 2004).
For a recent and relevant discussion necessarily visible or obvious exter- 69. For the full publication of this
of the prevalence, embryology, and nally. man’s burial, see Tur, Svyatko, and
etiology of cleft conditions in modern 68. Kang, Narayanan, and Kelsall Nechvaloda 2016.
as well as ancient contexts, see Adams 2012. Cleft conditions have also been

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
762 Debby Sneed
a b
Not to scale
c
Figure 3. Cleft skull of an 18- to
23-year-old male from the Middle
Bronze Age cemetery of Firsovo 14
(Altai, Russia): (a) anterior view;
(b) lateral view; (c) facial reconstruc-
tion. Scale 1:3 unless otherwise indicated.
Tur, Svyatko, and Nechvaloda 2016, pp. 279,
280, figs. 3, 5

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
Figure 4. Terracotta figurine frag-

ment from the Potters’ Quarter
at Corinth, showing a bald male
figure with a cleft condition (a),
with detail in three-quarter view (b).
Corinth KT-24-9. Mid-4th cen-
tury b.c. Scale 1:1 (a). Photos P. Dellatolas;
courtesy Corinth Excavations a b
and more robust than his contemporaries. Furthermore, isotopic analyses

show that he shared a diet very similar to others buried in the cemetery.70
Other archaeological evidence, including the remains of an adult man from
the Late Woodland period (ca. 500–1000 a.d.) in Pike County, Indiana,71
shows that before modern medical advances, individuals born with even
serious cleft conditions could survive into adulthood. The examples are,
admittedly, few. Adams identified 23 instances of cleft conditions in pub-
lished excavation reports worldwide, most belonging to individuals aged
20 to 50 years, with the youngest individual aged 8 to 10 years.72 This low
number of identified examples, however, is likely explained not by a lack of
occurrence in the past but by the difficulty of recognizing cleft conditions
in ancient remains: cleft conditions cannot easily be distinguished from
breakage due to taphonomic or archaeological processes. Additionally,
because the palate is thin and fragile, it does not often survive due to the
corrosive nature of soils.
Ancient Greeks were not unfamiliar with cleft conditions. As we have
seen, Hippocratic physicians refer to them. An orofacial cleft may be repre-
sented in a mid-4th-century b.c. terracotta figurine fragment from Corinth,
the head of which is preserved (Fig. 4).73 Stillwell, who first published the
find, called it “by far the finest grotesque figurine from the Potters’ Quar-
ter” at Corinth.74 Her description of the figurine’s facial features is worth
quoting in full:
Nose projects nearly at right angles to forehead and is bent to right.
70. Tur, Svyatko, and Nechvaloda Wings of nose strongly marked and asymmetrical. Cheek bones
2016, p. 279. and jaw muscles very prominent. Mouth wide open. Upper lip
71. See Phillips and Sivilich 2006. droops in center. Deep wrinkles from corners of nose to mouth.75
72. Adams 2016, p. 4.
73. Corinth KT-24-9: H. 6.3; Stillwell adds that “every non-essential detail was omitted” in the creation
W. 4.3 cm. Corinth XV.2, p. 143, of this figurine head, so the peculiarities of the subject’s mouth and nose
class XIX, no. 9, pl. 30. were likely intentionally modeled. As Skoog first noted, the sculptor here
74. Corinth XV.2, p. 143.
has reproduced the characteristics of nasal asymmetry in a complete uni-
75. Corinth XV.2, p. 143.
76. Skoog 1969, p. 50. lateral cleft of the lip with remarkable accuracy.76 Grmek and Gourevitch
77. Grmek and Gourevitch 1998, call the identification of this congenital condition “certain” and commend
p. 234. the sculptor for their precision.77

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
764 Debby Sneed
The Boiotian figurine group discussed above (see Fig. 2) may likewise
depict an individual with an orofacial cleft. In her publication of the figure,
Gourevitch notes that “the infant’s mouth appears to present a bizarre cav-
ity.”78 She argues that the cavity is a mistake—that the tip of the feeding
bottle and the infant’s mouth were originally joined, but either in the pro-
cess of firing or during modern restoration, the two were separated, leaving
the “bizarre cavity.” As Gourevitch also observes, however, the faces of the
infant and the female figure are finely detailed, unlike the simple modeling
of their bodies, and the feeding bottle was originally formed separately.79
If the infant’s face was modeled without the encumbrance of the feeding
bottle, one would expect the same attention to detail for his mouth as for
the rest of his face. At the very least, his mouth should not necessarily at-
tract the designation of “bizarre.” Furthermore, because the feeding bottle
was formed separately from the face, it would not have distorted the infant’s
mouth during or after the firing process. Could the sculptor here have been
deliberate in their modeling of the infant’s mouth, intending to draw atten-
tion to it? Chamoux points out that historically, hard spouts such as those on
feeding bottles were covered with a piece of cloth so that they more closely
resembled nipples or wicks.80 The object in the female figure’s hand, identi-
fied by Gourevitch as a rag or cloth, could well have served this function.
We cannot conclusively link a feeding bottle with any Greek infant,
child, or adult with an orofacial cleft or, for that matter, with any specific
illness or condition, except perhaps age-related degeneration in the cases of
feeding bottles found with older adults. Feeding bottles do, however, fulfill
the requirements of modern bottles specifically made for infants with cleft
conditions: they dispense liquids slowly and without requiring the infant to
produce suction.81 One possible, though ultimately unprovable, association
comes from central Athens. A well-known deposit from the Athenian Agora,
the so-called Bone Well (well G 5:3), dated to ca. 165–150 b.c., contained
the remains of at least 459 infants, most of whom died within a week of
birth.82 The majority of these infants apparently died from natural causes.83
Buried here, too, were an adult, an 8- to 10-year-old child, and two older
infants (less than one year old). Upon excavation, the bones—including
those of at least 150 dogs—were collected and stored all together, making
it impossible to identify whole skeletons; instead, skeletal elements had to
be studied individually, in isolation from the whole body. The deposit will
be discussed in more detail below, but what is relevant here is the presence
of the feeding bottle mentioned above (see Fig. 1).84 Because of the clear
pattern of these vessels being found in formal tombs, this particular bottle
has been identified as a grave good.85 Accordingly, it was intended to ac-
company at least one individual in the deposit, whose death could have
stemmed from a variety of circumstances and conditions identified among
the remains—premature birth and low birth weight, trauma, infection
78. Gourevitch and Chamay 1992, Pomadére 2007, p. 276. 83. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder
p. 79. 81. See Rouquet and Loridant 2003. 2018, p. 52.
79. Gourevitch and Chamay 1992, 82. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder 2018 84. Agora P 13498.
p. 78. is the fullest and best discussion of this 85. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder
80. Chamoux 1973, p. 411; see also deposit as a whole. 2018, pp. 98–100.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
and hemorrhage, and developmental anomalies. Although we cannot link

the bottle to any specific individual—including any of the seven or more
individuals with a cleft palate—its presence in this deposit nevertheless
suggests that it was used to aid in the feeding of at least one infant who
was weak, sick, or disabled.
B I OA RC H A E O L O G I C A L EV I D EN C E
The 2nd-century b.c. Agora Bone Well is important when considering the

question of infanticide in ancient Greece. Although the well was located
near the city’s most public square, its precise situation was rather isolated,
tucked in an alley between the Stoa of Zeus and the so-called Arsenal,
making it easy to access privately.86 Until its most recent examination by
Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder, scholars had proffered a variety of interpreta-
tions for the large number of skeletons, including symbolic sacrifice, famine,
and plague.87 Infanticide has been considered as a possible explanation for
the deposit because of the age distribution of the infants: most range from
30 weeks in utero to 42 weeks, or just past full term; the median age at death,
however, was one week post-partum, and almost all had died before they
were eight days old.88 As Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder demonstrate, there is
“abundant evidence of natural mortality among the young infants.”89 The
age distribution of the infant dead here would likely not have surprised
an ancient physician: Aristotle (Hist. an. 7.588a8), who was the son of a
physician, declared that “most [infants] die before the seventh day.”
Given that infanticide and/or exposure were practiced in the ancient
world, Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder do not rule these out as the cause of
death for a small number of the infants, even though it is not possible to
say how many or which ones might potentially have been intentionally
killed.90 In particular, they observe that some of the infants “had visible
defects that may have made them candidates for infanticide.”91 Based on
the analysis of the bones, the identified anomalies in question include
cleft palates, an upper limb difference, an anomaly in the clavicle that may
have given an infant an unusual posture, and an irregular cervical rib that
may have had consequences for an infant’s upper body mobility.92 There
is no osteological evidence to suggest that any newborn infant with an
identified impairment was, indeed, intentionally killed; the only factor
recognized as contributing to a suggestion of infanticide is the presence
of physical impairments. Most infants, however, were shown to have died
of natural causes and to have been deposited in the well after they had
died—not before. In an otherwise undifferentiated deposit, what, then,
86. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder 89. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder
(2018, pp. 1–23) provide a full discus- 2018, p. 52.
sion of the well’s location and context. 90. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder
87. See Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder 2018, p. 125.
2018 (esp. p. 105) for an overview of 91. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder
previous interpretations. 2018, p. 52.
88. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder 92. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder
2018, pp. 40–42. 2018, pp. 48–50.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
766 Debby Sneed
makes it possible to propose that a specific subset of the infants—those with

identified congenital impairments—was the likeliest to have been killed?
The literary evidence cited above, in fact, confirms that we have no
reason to assume infanticide as a fate for any disabled infant. Consider,
for example, the infant with an upper limb difference in the Agora Bone
Well. Both the upper and lower segments of the arm (humerus and ulna)
were as short as those belonging to a much smaller fetus but as thick as the
bones of a near full-term infant.93 The dimensions of the bones “suggest
a severe growth anomaly resulting in stunted limbs.”94 This infant may be
compared with the Hippocratic description of those who are “weasel-armed
from birth.” As we learn from that physician, individuals with this kind of
impairment have limited mobility in their affected arm and may be unable,
for example, to raise their arm above the elbow. Still, there is no need to
despair, as people with this congenital limb difference can use the arm for
a wide variety of tasks just as easily as someone with an unimpaired arm.
Important, too, for understanding this deposit is the inclusion of a
feeding bottle. It is, of course, not possible to identify which infant was
accompanied by this grave good, but its presence demonstrates the active
attempt to assist at least one ill or impaired infant. Additionally, evidence
for this kind of active assistance is available in the remains of an older infant
who was deposited in the well after death. This infant, aged perhaps six to
eight months (though the exact age is difficult to establish with certainty),
had hydrocephalus before it died.95 Hydrocephalus is a symptom associated
with a number of different diseases and conditions, and it can be either
congenital or acquired.96 Regardless, its development is gradual, and “what
is clear is that the child was cared for during a period when it would have
become progressively more debilitated and more disturbing in appearance.”97
That this infant was ultimately deposited in this well suggests that it had not
yet achieved a status that would have resulted in its formal burial. That is, it
had a social status similar to the rest of the infants in the deposit, despite its
age. In this case, then, an infant with a liminal status received extraordinary
care for an extended period of time, long enough for significant changes to
the cranium to develop. This infant, as well as the feeding bottle, shows that
ancient Greek parents did indeed expend extraordinary efforts to care for
infants whose needs exceeded those of others. In the end, I agree that we
cannot rule out infanticide as a cause of death for a minority of the infants
in this deposit. If, however, most of the infants can be shown to have died
from natural causes, we should assume that this conclusion applies to all
equally, unless definitive proof can be put forth for a specific case.98 The mere
presence of disabled infants in the deposit does not constitute evidence that
such infants were more likely to have been killed at birth.
93. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder 2018, p. 38.

2018, p. 48. 98. Such proof is evident in the
94. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder case of another infant in the deposit
2018, p. 48. (AA 26a), who likely died from
95. Infant AA 26b: Liston, Rotroff, injuries sustained during child abuse;
and Snyder 2018, pp. 36–38. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder 2018,
96. See, e.g., Rizvi and Anjum 2005. pp. 32–36.
97. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
CO N C LU S I O N S
Any argument about disability and infanticide in ancient Greece must define
what, exactly, one means by “disability.” The consequences of ambiguity
here are real. Rose argues that “too often, anachronistic assumptions about
modern standards of normalcy have been applied to very thin evidence and
have resulted in sweeping conclusions.”99 Because of popular (though false)
notions that ancient Greece is the foundation of “Western civilization,”
sweeping conclusions about ancient Greek cultural practices are influential.
Consider the unrelated issue of abortion. In 1973, the landmark Supreme
Court case Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) established the legal basis for
abortion rights in the United States. In the majority opinion for the case,
Justice Blackmun articulated that his opinion was based on, among other
things, “medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals
about man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries.”100
Blackmun then entered into a lengthy discussion of the Hippocratic Oath,
which he claimed “represents the apex of the development of strict ethical
concepts in medicine, and its influence endures to this day.”101
The Hippocratic Oath, however, expressly prohibits physicians who
adhere to it from administering abortive remedies. How, then, did Black-
mun justify basing his decision on its precedent? Blackmun did not take
the Oath at face value but relied on a 1943 interpretation of the text by
Edelstein, who argued that the Oath represented “only a small segment of
Greek opinion,” one that “certainly was not accepted by all ancient physi-
cians.”102 Edelstein contended—and Blackmun agreed—that the Oath was
“a Pythagorean manifesto, and not the expression of an absolute standard of
medical conduct.”103 Blackmun understood his opinion as comporting with
ancient attitudes about abortion because he was convinced by Edelstein’s
interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath.104 Edelstein could not have known
that his scholarship would become a prominent factor in such a significant
Supreme Court decision. We, too, cannot know the impact that our own
arguments will have, and for this reason, it behooves scholars to give full and
sensitive consideration to all available evidence, especially when discussing
the value of a human life. More to the point, it is imperative that we define
our terms and be careful not to impose modern medical and medical-legal
terminology onto past bodies.
As is any construct, disability is culturally contingent: the nature of
disability, the kinds of conditions that are considered disabling, and the
meanings attached to disability all vary with time, place, and context.105
It is not enough to say or imply that disability constitutes grounds for
infanticide without defining what specific impairments or conditions one
intends to include. Polydactyly, for example, is undoubtedly a congenital
anomaly. Few would suggest, I imagine, that an extra finger or toe would
99. Rose 2003, p. 31. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 132 (1973). even suggesting the opposite, that the
100. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 103. Edelstein 1943, p. 64, quoted Oath actually was a mainstream ethical
116–117 (1973). in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 132 code, one that most ancient physicians
101. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 117 (1973). adhered to. See, e.g., Prioreschi 1995.
(1973). 104. Edelstein’s argument has been 105. Straus 2013, p. 462.
102. Edelstein 1943, p. 63, quoted in criticized and contradicted, with some

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
768 Debby Sneed
encourage an ancient Greek parent or midwife to kill its bearer.106 Indeed,

polydactyly appears in the archaeological record, as on a late-6th- or early
5th-century b.c. oinochoe from Corinth that shows a six-fingered lyre
player, and on the famous terracotta figurine of a multifingered centaur
from Lefkandi.107 There is also literary evidence that indicates familiarity
with this condition in the ancient world. In the Roman period, Pliny the
Elder (HN 11.99) writes that “some people have six fingers on their hands,”
including a well-known poet, Volcatius Sedigitus, whose name evokes his
supernumerary digit.108
Arguments about disability and infanticide in the ancient world often
beg the question of a threshold of disability, based on implicit ableist evalu-
ations, of what is “disabled enough” to mark an individual as more likely
to be killed at birth. In this article, I have attempted to show that modern
evaluations rarely match ancient realities. An ancient Greek physician
valued individuals with congenital impairments like clubfoot and limb
difference enough to dedicate professional thought and practice to their
care and development. My argument here is not that disabled infants were
never killed at birth. Indeed, we can assume that some infants were victims
of infanticide in ancient Greece, for a variety of complex reasons, such as
extreme poverty, abuse, or even psychosis. Rather, I argue that infanticide
was not the default ancient Greek response to disability or impairment.
Whether an infant with any specific impairment would have been considered
“not worth rearing” should be proven on ancient evidence, not assumed.
106. In some societies, polydactyly 108. Pliny describes a number of

imbued its bearer with a special status, impairments and individuals who have
as, e.g., has been shown at Pueblo them, as with a gladiator whose arms
Bonito in Chaco Canyon (Crown, were not the same length (HN 11.99).
Marden, and Mattson 2016) and in Plutarch (Cor. 11.4) discusses the
other Prehispanic societies in the Roman practice of using three names,
Americas (e.g., Wrobel et al. 2012). one of which often points to a bodily
107. Oinochoe: Corinth C-1965-174 abnormality. For Plutarch, the prac-
(Corinth XVIII.1, pp. 87–88, no. 50, tice serves to accustom men to regard
fig. 3, pl. 8; Stroud 1968, p. 311, neither blindness nor other bodily
pl. 98:m, n). Figurine: Eretria, Archaeo- misfortune as a reproach or a disgrace.
logical Museum ME 8620 (Desborough, See also Plut. Cic. 1.3–6; Meeusen
Nicholls, and Popham 1970). 2016, p. 207.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
R EF ER EN C E S
Adam, J., ed. 1969. The Republic of Plato Boswell, J. 1988. The Kindness of Strang- Desborough, V. R., R. V. Nicholls, and
1, 2nd ed., repr., Cambridge. ers: The Abandonment of Children in M. Popham. 1970. “A Euboean
Adams, A. 2016. “Developmental Western Europe from Late Antiquity Centaur,” BSA 65, pp. 21–30.
Defects in Ancient Context— to the Renaissance, New York. Dettwyler, K. A. 1991. “Can Paleopa-
Causations of Cleft Palate in the Bouffier, S. 2012. “Mobilier funéraire thology Provide Evidence for ‘Com-
Athenian Agora” (M.A. thesis, Univ. et statut social des enfants dans passion’?” American Journal of Physi-
of Waterloo). les nécropoles grecques de Sicile,” cal Anthropology 84, pp. 375–384.
Agora XXIX = S. I. Rotroff, Hellenis- in Hermary and Dubois 2012, Dobbs, M. B., J. A. Morcuende, C. A.
tic Pottery: Athenian and Imported pp. 131–148. Gurnett, and I. V. Ponseti. 2000.
Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Brennan, M. 2016. “Lame Hephaistos,” “Treatment of Idiopathic Clubfoot:
Material, Princeton 1997. BSA 111, pp. 163–181. A Historical Review,” Iowa Orthope-
Allan, W. 2014. “The Body in Mind: Brewis, A. 1992. “Anthropological dic Journal 20, pp. 59–64.
Medical Imagery in Sophocles,” Perspectives on Infanticide,” Arizona Doran, T. 2017. “Eugenic Ideology in
Hermes 142, pp. 259–278. Anthropologist 8, pp. 103–119. the Hellenistic Spartan Reforms,”
Anand, A., and D. A. Sala. 2008. Chamoux, A. 1973. “L’allaitement Historia 66, pp. 258–280.
“Clubfoot: Etiology and Treatment,” artificiel,” Annales de démographie Dubois, C. 2013. “L’alimentation des
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 42, historique 1973, special issue, Enfant enfants en bâs age: Les biberons
pp. 22–28. et Sociétés, pp. 410–418. grecs,” Dossiers d’archéologie 356,
Angel, J. L. 1971. The People of Lerna: Chatzidakis, P. I. 2004. “Ειδωλιόμορφα pp. 64–67.
Analysis of a Prehistoric Aegean Popu- σκεύη από τη Δήλο,” in ΣΤ′ Επι- Edelstein, L. 1943. The Hippocratic
lation, Princeton. στημονική Συνάντηση για την Oath: Text, Translation, and Inter-
Beaumont, L. A. 2012. Childhood in Ελληνιστική Κεραμική: Προ- pretation (Bulletin of the History of
Ancient Athens: Iconography and βλήματα χρονολόγησης, κλειστά Medicine Suppl. 1), Baltimore.
Social History (Routledge Mono- σύνολα—εργαστήρια, Βόλος 17–23 Edwards, M. L. 1996. “The Cultural
graphs in Classical Studies), Απριλίου 2000. Πρακτικά, Athens, Context of Deformity in the Greek
London. pp. 367–392. World: ‘Let There Be a Law That
Beck, M., ed. 2014. A Companion to Christensen, K., K. Juel, A. M. Herskind, No Deformed Child Shall Be
Plutarch (Blackwell Companions to and J. C. Murray. 2004. “Long Term Reared,’” Ancient History Bulletin 10,
the Ancient World 98), Chichester. Follow Up Study of Survival Associ- pp. 79–92.
Blandin, B. 1998. “Recherches sur les ated with Cleft Lip and Palate at Engels, D. 1980. “The Problem of
tombes à inhumation de l’Hérôon Birth,” BMJ 328, pp. 1405–1407. Female Infanticide in the Greco-
d’Erétrie,” in Euboica: L’Eubea e Conderman, C. P. 2016. “Cleft Lip Roman World,” CP 75, pp. 112–
la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in and Palate,” in Facial Plastic and 120.
Occidente (Collection du Centre Jean Reconstructive Surgery: A Comprehen- Evans Grubbs, J. 2011. “The Dynamics
Bérard 16), ed. B. D’Agostino and sive Study Guide, ed. B. J.-F. Wong, of Infant Abandonment: Motives,
M. Bats, Naples, pp. 135–146. M. G. Arnold, and J. O. Boeck- Attitudes, and (Unintended) Conse-
Blegen, C. W., and M. Rawson. 1966. mann, pp. 167–187. quences,” in The Dark Side of Child-
The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in West- Corbier, M. 2001. “Child Exposure hood in Late Antiquity and the Middle
ern Messenia 1: The Buildings and and Abandonment,” in Childhood, Ages: Unwanted, Disabled, and Lost
Their Contents, Princeton. Class, and Kin in the Roman World, (Childhood in the Past Monograph
Blondé, F., and L. Villard. 1992. “Sur ed. S. Dixon, London, pp. 52–73. Series 2), ed. K. Mustakallio and
quelques vases presents dans la Corinth = Corinth: Results of Excavations C. Laes, Oxford, pp. 21–36.
Collection Hippocratique: Confron- Conducted by the American School of ———. 2013. “Infant Exposure and
tation des données littéraires Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton Infanticide,” in The Oxford Handbook
et archéologiques,” BCH 116, XV.2 = A. N. Stillwell, The Pot- of Childhood and Education in the
pp. 97–117. ters’ Quarter: The Terracottas, 1952. Classical World (Oxford Handbooks
Boëldieu-Trevet, J. 2018. “Des nou- XVIII.1 = E. G. Pemberton, in Classical Studies), ed. J. Evans
veau-nés malformés et un roi The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Grubbs and T. Parkin, Oxford,
boiteux: Histoires Spartiates,” Pallas The Greek Pottery, 1989. pp. 83–107.
106, pp. 213–228. Crown, P. L., K. Marden, and H. V. Eyben, E. 1980–1981. “Family Plan-
Bonnard, J.-B. 2018. “L’exposition des Mattson. 2016. “Foot Notes: The ning in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,”
nouveau-nés handicapés dans le Social Implications of Polydac- Ancient Society 11–12, pp. 5–82.
monde grec, entre réalités et mythes: tyly and Foot-Related Imagery at Furumark, A. 1941. The Mycenaean
Un point sur la question,” Pallas 106, Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon,” Pottery: Analysis and Classification,
pp. 229–240. AmerAnt 81, pp. 426–448. Stockholm.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
770 Debby Sneed
Garland, R. 1985. The Greek Way of 20–22 janvier 2011 (Bibliothèque

Death, London. d’archéologie méditerranéenne et
———. 1995. The Eye of the Beholder: africaine 12), Paris.
Deformity and Disability in the Hodkinson, S., and I. M. Morris, eds.
Graeco-Roman World, Ithaca. 2012. Sparta in Modern Thought: Pol-
Germain, L. R. F. 1969. “Aspects du itics, History, and Culture, Swansea.
droit d’exposition en Gréce,” Revue Huttmann, A., U. Tillmanns, H.
historique de droit français et étranger Greiling, and M. Reidel. 1988.
47, pp. 177–197. “Inhaltsanalysen an römischen
Golden, M. 1981. “Demography and Säuglingstrinkgefässen,” in Actes:
the Exposure of Girls at Athens,” XXX Congrès international d’histoire
Phoenix 35, pp. 316–331. de la médecine, Düsseldorf 31-VIII–
———. 1988. “Did the Ancients 5-IX-1986, ed. H. Schadewaldt
Care When Their Children Died?” and K.-H. Leven, Düsseldorf,
GaR 35, pp. 152–163. pp. 1212–1223.
———. 2015. Children and Childhood Huys, M. 1989. “ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ and ΑΠΟ-
in Classical Athens (Ancient Society ΘΕΣΙΣ: The Terminology of Infant
and History), 2nd ed., Baltimore. Exposure in Greek Antiquity,”
Gourevitch, D. 1990. “Les tire-lait AntCl 58, pp. 190–197.
antiques et la consummation médi- ———. 1996. “The Spartan Practice of
cale de lait humain,” Histoire des Selective Infanticide and Its Paral-
sciences médicales 24, pp. 93–98. lels in Ancient Utopian Tradition,”
Gourevitch, D., and J. Chamay. 1992. Ancient Society 27, pp. 47–74.
“Femme nourrissant son enfant au Jouanna, J. 1992. Hippocrate, Paris.
biberon,” AntK 35, pp. 78–81. Kang, S., C. S. Narayanan, and
Grmek, M. D., and D. Gourevitch. W. Kelsall. 2012. “Mortality among
1998. Les maladies dans l’art antique Infants Born with Orofacial Clefts
(Penser la médecine), Paris. in a Single Cleft Network,” The
Haentjens, A. M. E. 2000. “Reflec- Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 49,
tions on Female Infanticide in the pp. 508–511.
Greco-Roman World,” AntCl 69, Kern, J. H. C. 1957. “An Attic ‘Feeding
pp. 261–264. Bottle’ of the 4th Century b.c. in
Hallager, E., and B. P. Hallager, eds. Leyden,” Mnemosyne 10, pp. 16–21.
2003. The Greek-Swedish Excavations Kotitsa, Z. 2012. “Tombes d’enfants du
at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kas- IVe s. av. J.-C. à Pydna,” in Hermary
telli, Khania, 1970–1987 and 2001: and Dubois 2012, pp. 77–96.
Results of the Excavations under the Lacaille, A. D. 1950. “Infant Feeding-
Direction of Yannis Tzedakis and Bottles in Prehistoric Times,”
Carl-Gustaf Styrenius (ActaAth 4º, Proceedings of the Royal Society of
47) 3.1: The Late Minoan IIIB:2 Medicine 43, pp. 7–10.
Settlement, Stockholm. Laes, C. 2008. “Learning from Silence:
Halm-Tisserant, M. 1986. “La repré- Disabled Children in Roman
sentation du retour d’Héphaïstos Antiquity,” Arctos 42, pp. 85–122.
dans l’Olympe: Iconographie Liston, M. A., S. I. Rotroff, and L. M.
traditionnelle et innovations Snyder. 2018. The Agora Bone Well
formelles dans l’atelier de (Hesperia Suppl. 50), Princeton.
Polygnotos (440–430),” AntK 29, Luginbill, R. D. 2002. “Tyrtaeus
pp. 8–22. 12 West: Come Join the Spartan
Hausfater, G., and S. B. Hrdy, eds. Army,” CQ 52, pp. 405–414.
1984. Infanticide: Comparative and Maniscalco, J. M., K. R. Harris, S.
Evolutionary Perspectives, New York. Atkinson, and P. Parker. 2007.
Hermary, A., and C. Dubois, eds. 2012. “Alloparenting in Steller Sea Lions
L’enfant et la mort dans l’antiquité 3: (Eumetopias jubatus): Correlations
Le matériel associé aux tombes with Misdirected Care and Other
d’enfants. Actes de la table ronde inter- Observations,” Journal of Ethol-
nationale organisée à la Maison Médi- ogy 25, pp. 125–131.
terranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme Mariaud, O. 2012. “Mobilier funé-
(MMSH) d’Aix-en-Provence, raire et classe d’âge dans les cités

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
grecques d’Égée orientale à l’époque Patras: People, Material Remains, and ———. 2003. “Archéologie expérimen-
archaïque,” in Hermary and Dubois Culture in Context, Oxford. tale: Les tire-lait à l’épreuve,” in Actes
2012, pp. 23–37. Pastor, L. 2010. “The Potters’ Work- du Congrès de Saint-Roman-en-Gal,
Matsumoto, T., N. Itoh, S. Inoue, and shops from the Meuse to the Rhine 29 mai–1er juin 2003: Le mobilier
M. Nakamura. 2016. “An Observa- during the Late La Tène and the du IIIe siècle dans la cité de Vienne et
tion of a Severely Disabled Infant Gallo-Roman Period” (diss. Univ. of à Lyon. Actualité des recherches céra-
Chimpanzee in the Wild and Her Strasbourg). miques, ed. L. Rivet and S. Saulnier,
Interactions with Her Mother,” Patterson, C. 1985. “‘Not Worth the Marseille, pp. 665–666.
Primates 57, pp. 3–7. Rearing’: The Causes of Infant Sabetai, V. 2000. “Παιδικές ταφές
McFadden, G. H. 1946. “A Tomb of the Exposure in Ancient Greece,” Ακραιφίας,” in Γ′ Διεθνές Συνέδριο
Necropolis of Ayios Ermoyenis at TAPA 115, pp. 103–123. Βoιωτικών Μελετών, Θήβα 4–8
Kourion,” AJA 50, pp. 449–489. Phillips, S. M., and M. Sivilich. 2006. Σεπτεμβρίοu 1996, ed. V. Aravanti-
Meeusen, M. 2016. “Plutarch’s ‘Philoso- “Cleft Palate: A Case Study of nos, Athens, pp. 494–535.
phy’ of Disability: Human after All,” Disability and Survival in Prehis- Schmidt, M. 1983–1984. “Hephaistos
in Disability in Antiquity (Rewriting toric North America,” International lebt: Untersuchungen zur Frage der
Antiquity), ed. C. Laes, London, Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16, Behandlung behinderter Kinder
pp. 197–209. pp. 528–535. in der Antike,” Hephaistos 5–6,
Millions, K. 2021. “(In)Visible Pomadère, M. 2007. “Des enfants pp. 133–161.
Children: Diachronic Analyses of nourris au biberon à l’âge du Seeberg, A. 1965. “Hephaistos Rides
Thessalian Child Burials” (paper, bronze?” in Cooking Up the Past: Again,” JHS 85, pp. 102–109.
Archaeological Institute of America, Food and Culinary Practices in the Skoog, T. 1969. “A Head from Ancient
122nd Annual Meeting, 2021, Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, Corinth,” Scandinavian Journal of
virtual). ed. C. Mee and J. Renard, Oxford, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 3,
Moliner, M. 2012. “Le mobilier déposé pp. 207–309. pp. 49–53.
dans les tombes d’enfants des colo- Pomeroy, S. B., S. M. Burstein, Small, M. F. 1990. “Alloparental Behav-
nies grecques d’Ampurias, Agde, et W. Donlan, J. T. Roberts, and ior in Barbary Macaques, Macaca
Marseille,” in Hermary and Dubois D. Tandy, eds. 2012. Ancient Greece: sylvanus,” Animal Behavior 39,
2012, pp. 171–192. A Political, Social, and Cultural His- pp. 297–306.
Mossman, J., ed. 1997. Plutarch and His tory, 3rd ed., Oxford. Smith, T. J. 2009. “Komastai or ‘He-
Intellectual World: Essays on Plutarch, Prioreschi, P. 1995. “The Hippocratic phaistoi’? Visions of Comic Parody
London. Oath: A Code for Physicians, Not in Archaic Greece,” BICS 52,
Noll, D. 1936. “Ein griechischer a Pythagorean Manifesto,” Medical pp. 69–92.
Milchsaugapparat,” Ciba Zeitschrift Hypotheses 44, pp. 447–462. Sneed, D. 2018. “The Life Cycle of
3, p. 1213. Reid, J., S. Reilly, and N. Kilpatrick. Disability in Ancient Greece” (diss.
Oberman, M. 2004. “Mothers Who 2007. “Sucking Performance of Univ. of California, Los Angeles).
Kill: Coming to Terms with Mod- Babies with Cleft Conditions,” The Sommer, M., and D. Sommer. 2015.
ern American Infanticide,” DePaul Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 44, Care, Socialization, and Play in
Journal of Health Care Law 8, pp. 312–320. Ancient Attica: A Developmental
pp. 3–107. Renfrew, C., M. Gimbutas, and E. S. Childhood Archaeological Approach,
Obladen, M. 2012. “Guttus, tiralatte, Elster. 1986. Excavations at Sitagroi: Aarhus.
and téterelle: A History of Breast A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Štefanac, B. 2009. “Staklene kapaljke s
Pumps,” Journal of Perinatal Medi- Greece 1 (Monumenta archaeologica antičke nekropole Relja u Zadru,”
cine 40, pp. 669–675. 13), Los Angeles. Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dal-
Oldenziel, R. 1987. “The Historiogra- Rizvi, R., and Q. Anjum. 2005. “Hydro- matinsku 102, pp. 109–127.
phy of Infanticide in Antiquity,” in cephalus in Children,” Journal of Straus, J. N. 2013. “Autism as Culture,”
Sexual Asymmetry: Studies in Ancient Pakistan Medical Association 55, in The Disability Studies Reader,
Society, ed. J. Blok and P. Mason, pp. 502–507. 4th ed., ed. L. J. Davis, New York,
Amsterdam, pp. 87–107. Rose, M. L. 2003. The Staff of Oedipus: pp. 460–484.
Ollier, F. 1933. Le mirage spartiate 1: Transforming Disability in Ancient Stroud, R. S. 1968. “The Sanctuary of
Étude sur l’idéalisation de Sparte Greece (Corporealities), Ann Arbor. Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth:
dans l’antiquité grecque de l’origine Rouquet, N. 2004. “Du nouveau sur Preliminary Report II. 1964–1965,”
jusqu’aux cyniques, Paris. les tire-lait,” L’Archéologue 75, Hesperia 37, pp. 299–330.
———. 1943. Le mirage spartiate 2: pp. 10–11. Tur, S. S., S. V. Svyatko, and A. I. Nech-
Étude sur l’idéalisation de Sparte dans Rouquet, N., and F. Loridant. 2000. valoda. 2016. “Cleft Lip Case in a
l’antiquité grecque du début de l’école “Note sur les biberons en Gaule Middle Bronze Age Young Man
cynique jusqu’à la fin de la cité, Paris. romaine,” in Actes du Congrès de from Altai, Russia,” International
Paschalidis, C. 2018. The Mycenaean Libourne, 1er–4 juin 2000, ed. Journal of Osteoarchaeology 27,
Cemetery at Achaia Clauss near L. Rivet, Marseille, pp. 425–440. pp. 276–287.

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC
772 Debby Sneed
Ure, P. N. 1934. Aryballoi and Yao, H., H. Yu, B. Yang, W. Yang,
Figurines from Rhitsona in Boeotia H. Xu, C. C. Grueter, M. Li, and
(Reading University Studies), Z. Xiang. 2016. “Male Infanticide in
Cambridge. the Golden Snub-Nosed Monkey
van Hook, L. R. 1920. “The Exposure (Rhinopithecus roxellana), a Season-
of Infants at Athens,” TAPA 51, ally Breeding Primate,” Interna-
pp. 134–145. tional Journal of Primatology 37,
van Niekerk Viljoen, G. 1959. “Plato pp. 175–184.
and Aristotle on the Exposure of Zheng, R., L. Karczmarski, W. Lin,
Infants at Athens,” Acta Classica 2, S. C. Y. Chan, W.-L. Chang, and
pp. 58–69. Y. Wu. 2016. “Infanticide in the
Whitehouse, D. 1997. Roman Glass Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin
in the Corning Museum of Glass 1, (Sousa chinensis),” Journal of Ethol-
Corning. ogy 34, pp. 299–307.
Wrobel, G. D., C. Helmke, L. Nash, Ziskowski, A. 2012. “Clubfeet and
and J. J. Awe. 2012. “Polydactyly Kypselids: Contextualizing
and the Maya: A Review and a Case Corinthian Padded Dancers in
from the Site of Peligroso, Upper the Archaic Period,” BSA 107,
Macal River Valley, Belize,” Ancient pp. 211–232.
Mesoamerica 23, pp. 131–142.
Debby Sneed
Cal if or nia S tat e Univ ersit y, Long Beac h
department of c l assics
l ong beac h, c al if or nia 90840
[email protected]

46.177.21.235 on Wed, 12 Jan 2022 03:16:05 UTC

Disability and Infanticide in Ancient Greece

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disability and Infanticide in Ancient Greece

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disability and Infanticide in Ancient Greece

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disability and Infanticide in Ancient Greece

Author(s): Debby Sneed

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2972/hesperia.90.4.0747

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

In general, studies of infanticide in ancient Greece, regardless of its victims,

P lutar c h on S partan P rac t ic e

This content downloaded from

12. Pomeroy et al. 2012, p. 182. 2012, p. ix.

This content downloaded from

P l ato’s an d Ar i stot l e ’s U top ian Te x ts

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

χρέεσθαι μέντοι τῇ χειρὶ δυνατώτατοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐκ γενεῆς γαλιάγκω-

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

The author of the Hippocratic Eight-Month’s Child discusses infants

35. See, e.g., Allan 2014, esp. p. 273,

This content downloaded from

Figure 1. Feeding bottle from the

This content downloaded from

Figure 2. Terracotta figurine from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Figure 4. Terracotta figurine frag-

and more robust than his contemporaries. Furthermore, isotopic analyses

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

and hemorrhage, and developmental anomalies. Although we cannot link

The 2nd-century b.c. Agora Bone Well is important when considering the

This content downloaded from

makes it possible to propose that a specific subset of the infants—those with

93. Liston, Rotroff, and Snyder 2018, p. 38.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

encourage an ancient Greek parent or midwife to kill its bearer.106 Indeed,

106. In some societies, polydactyly 108. Pliny describes a number of

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Garland, R. 1985. The Greek Way of 20–22 janvier 2011 (Bibliothèque

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

You might also like