Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#91

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

bivargen wrote: post #90
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In turn, I would suggest not assuming that I haven't read the blog post. "Σπαρτιάτης" is used in Greek (modern and ancient) to mean a (male) inhabitant of a place called "Sparta". What the blog author claims is that there are _two_ words, one of which means free citizens of Sparta and the other, helots. He says that one of those words is "Spartiate" and that the other is "Spartan". This is a distinction that is impos…

Apologies for seemingly misunderstanding your post and in turn not making my point very clear! But, surely “spartiate” (or rather Σπαρτιάτης) isn't a made up word? Also, as I understand your reply the classical sources exclusively use that word for the “homoioi”? If so I understand your original point and have learned something new today. And a small edit: It was your last parenthesis that confused me, I would have w…

Apology accepted. I'm not a native English speaker as you are not a native Greek speaker. Which btw should give you pause before trying to teach me a lesson about my language. I've deleted a comment that made that point more forcefully and I'll now leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how I know you're not a native Greek speaker.

"Homoioi" (όμοιοι) means "equals" or "peers". That's what Spartans considered each other and they'd use that word in context, but used the demonym "Spartan" to refer to their fellow free citizens of Sparta as did everybody else. The helots were called either helots or ..."the Spartans' slaves".

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#92

Post by verisimi »

"Although infanticide happens occasionally in most societies—including in modern times—many cultures shun or disparage it. Sneed says there’s little to show the Greeks were any different."

Erm... infanticide is an epidemic in our society! There's nothing occasional about it.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#93

Post by ajuc »

verisimi wrote: post #92

"Although infanticide happens occasionally in most societies—including in modern times—many cultures shun or disparage it. Sneed says there’s little to show the Greeks were any different." Erm... infanticide is an epidemic in our society! There's nothing occasional about it.

Abortion is not infanticide even if you happen to think it's exactly as evil. It's useful to have specific words mean specific things, otherwise you'd still need to invent a new word for non-abortion infanticide and what's the point of that?

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#94

Post by mhh__ »

jterrys wrote: post #54
suction wrote: post #45

Let's be honest, 99% of the average American's knowledge about Spartan society is from the movie "300". But it never stops being amusing when Americans have their "wait, those Hollywood movies are not even 1% historically correct??" moments.

Give it 20 years, people will think World War Two was fought by women of color with space age technology. Historical fiction is a very loosely respected genre of entertainment. We pick and prod what we want and let fantasy live out in historical dressing. We inundate media with it, and create an ethos to summarize complex ideas into puerile, milquetoast thoughts. Civilizations get washed down, historical figures rewr…

I don't think they will. WW2 media is still dominated by things other than (say) BF:V

They will have no sense of the Soviet contribution to the war, because that media will be American.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#95

Post by verisimi »

ajuc wrote: post #93
verisimi wrote: post #92

"Although infanticide happens occasionally in most societies—including in modern times—many cultures shun or disparage it. Sneed says there’s little to show the Greeks were any different." Erm... infanticide is an epidemic in our society! There's nothing occasional about it.

Abortion is not infanticide even if you happen to think it's exactly as evil. It's useful to have specific words mean specific things, otherwise you'd still need to invent a new word for non-abortion infanticide and what's the point of that?

My body, my choice. Over an unborn baby's body. Right?

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#96

Post by colordrops »

krisoft wrote: post #68
colordrops wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a name for being arbitrarily biased against a counterclaim? The simple fact that this is posed as a counterclaim itself seems to invoke skepticism, even when the original belief itself isn't even presented or has a poor basis itself. A weak counterclaim does not imply the claim to be truth.

> A weak counterclaim does not imply the claim to be truth. Yes. So? The options are not just that we accept whatever fact is presented, or accept whatever is the oposite of it. We can just say: “looks like we don’t know” and that is perfectly fine. A claim or a counterclaim (is there even a distinction?) warrants the same amount of proof.

> A claim or a counterclaim (is there even a distinction?) warrants the same amount of proof.

Yes that is exactly what I was saying.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#97

Post by arkades »

gpm wrote: post #87
Ansil849 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing in the article (and I could have missed it) proved evidence, from digs, against the idea of infanticide by the Spartans. Isn't the onus on the ones claiming that Spartans practiced systemic infanticide to provide the evidence that they did so?

The onus is on the people making claims in general. In this case someone (the journalist?) made a claim that "spartans didn't kill `weak' babies", so the onus is on them.

No, if the evidence for the area points to X, the folks claiming a deviation from the general evidenced trend need to provide evidence for that.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#98

Post by rkk3 »

mantaraygun wrote: post #10
rkk3 wrote: post #5

I recently read the Lycurgus chapter of Plutarch's "Lives" and I guess I missed the baby killing part? Very little emphasis compared to there being no such thing as adultery in Sparta, or effectively getting rid of Money.

You missed it, or maybe your translation left it out? Search for 'Apothetae': > Nor was it in the power of the father to dispose of the child as he thought fit; he was obliged to carry it before certain triers at a place called Lesche; these were some of the elders of the tribe to which the child belonged; their business it was carefully to view the infant, and, if they found it stout and well made, they gave order f…

Thanks. I just remembered the emphasis of Children belonging/being raised by the community. Still don't necessarily think it's right to interpret those few sentences as evidence there was rampant child sacrifice like Carthage.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#99

Post by pyuser583 »

Ansil849 wrote: post #19
gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #2

I haven’t read the archeologist’s work. I did read the article. The archeologist claims that evidence across the Aegean and Athens particularly shows weak babies were cared for until death. That’s fine. However we’re not discussing Athenian nor general Aegean baby care. We’re discussing Spartan care. Nothing in the article (and I could have missed it) proved evidence, from digs, against the idea of infanticide by the…

> Nothing in the article (and I could have missed it) proved evidence, from digs, against the idea of infanticide by the Spartans. Isn't the onus on the ones claiming that Spartans practiced systemic infanticide to provide the evidence that they did so?

There’s already evidence for it. There are contemporary accounts describing the practice.

These accounts aren’t perfect. Not necessarily first hand eye witnesses, but not rumor mongers either.

So anyone arguing that this didn’t happen needs to address an established consensus.

Lots of more recent research is attacking traditional ideas about the Spartans, so this is a welcome argument.

But saying “it’s on them to prove their point” isn’t really helpful.

Re: Ancient Spartans didn’t kill ‘weak’ babies, new study argues

#100

Post by pyuser583 »

arkades wrote: post #97
gpm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The onus is on the people making claims in general. In this case someone (the journalist?) made a claim that "spartans didn't kill `weak' babies", so the onus is on them.

No, if the evidence for the area points to X, the folks claiming a deviation from the general evidenced trend need to provide evidence for that.

This paper isn’t making an argument. It’s summarizing specialized research.

A specialist in the area could just say “appeal to authority” and they’d be right. The actual peer reviewed articles and books would require evidence.

But those articles and books wouldn’t be accessible to the average reader.

So the journalist is summarizing those arguments, but in the process reducing them to an appeal to authority - which is completely fine.

Post reply on HN