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

Ancient Carthaginians did sacrifice their children (2014)

ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 255 posts

Re: Ancient Carthaginians did sacrifice their children (2014)

#201

Post by slim »

amelius wrote: post #143

Which is more likely: ancient people sacificing their children, or ancient writers wanting to mess with future historians or simply writing horror?

I think the fact that it seems incredible to us that people could sacrifice their children is a testament to the advance of civilisation.

children were not always so precious. if memory does not fail me, in the 20th century, there were still laws that stated that children were property of their parents who disposed of their lifes as they wish. that means you could kill your child without consequences. child labor : legal. etc...

Re: Ancient Carthaginians did sacrifice their children (2014)

#202

Post by baryphonic »

jollyllama wrote: post #138
baryphonic wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Romans claimed this about themselves, but I'm not sure they're completely credible, at least about human sacrifice. The Roman Triumphal parade, for instance, included marching captured prisoners of war (often numbering in thousands), who would be led through the triumphal route up to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. There, the prisoners would be executed. The Romans may have claimed that they weren't commit…

There's a clear in-group/out-group distinction, though.

Why not just kill them on the Campus Martius, then? Or in the middle of the Forum? Or even on the steps of the Senate house, to symbolize the supremacy of Roman state institutions?

It's not the killings of prisoners themselves - those were common throughout the ancient world, alongside slavery. It's the fact that they killed them at the temple to the chief god.

Re: Ancient Carthaginians did sacrifice their children (2014)

#203

Post by inglor_cz »

ramblenode wrote: post #200
inglor_cz wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a society where tons of kids are born and half of them don't live to see their fifth birthday, children's lives are a lot less valuable than in the Western societies of 2023, where kids are something of a rare resource and they are expected to live full, long lives. This difference needs to be taken into account when thinking about various probabilities in the past.

Psychologically, I don't think the value of children has changed. Mourning the death of children is as ancient a literary trope as any. But from a microeconomic point of view, children were more valuable in pre-industrial times. Most people worked in agriculture or the trades and lived in multi-generation households, and children were necessary to help with chores and eventually take over the main occupation and care…

"Mourning the death of children is as ancient a literary trope as any."

It might have been different between infants and slightly older children. The really young ones died all too often.

Re: Ancient Carthaginians did sacrifice their children (2014)

#204

Post by baryphonic »

c00lio wrote: post #185
baryphonic wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Romans claimed this about themselves, but I'm not sure they're completely credible, at least about human sacrifice. The Roman Triumphal parade, for instance, included marching captured prisoners of war (often numbering in thousands), who would be led through the triumphal route up to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. There, the prisoners would be executed. The Romans may have claimed that they weren't commit…

One needs to be very careful about which things to label human sacrifice. It is possible to be very "inclusive" there. One popular example is the expression "sacrificed on the altar of progress", and the works of philosophers such as Adorno and Horckheimer on the topic, who argued that human sacrifice just takes a different form in modern civilisation, but is still present e.g. as victims of car traffic, suicides fro…

> One popular example is the expression "sacrificed on the altar of progress", and the works of philosophers such as Adorno and Horckheimer on the topic, who argued that human sacrifice just takes a different form in modern civilisation, but is still present e.g. as victims of car traffic, suicides from depression or industrial accidents. Imho, this only serves to hinder any kind of productive discussion because things tend to be not comparable in any way if terms are _that_ mushy.

I'm not talking about car (or chariot?) accidents here, I'm talking about literally thousands of people being executed on the grounds of a temple dedicated to Rome's chief god. Certainly people died in the Circus Maximus, and that is just sporting accident. I wouldn't even call gladiatorial combat human sacrifice, since it was mostly an entertainment spectacle in a more brutal time.

We're talking about Romans taking prisoners captured in war, marching them to one of the most significant religious locations within the sacred boundaries of the city, and executing them.

My issue with just trusting the ancients is that they sometimes aren't trustworthy. It's very possible that Rome didn't admit this was human sacrifice because Roman culture condemned human sacrifice, and kind of turned a blind eye to the ethics of this ritual.

Re: Ancient Carthaginians did sacrifice their children (2014)

#205

Post by mistrial9 »

Ginden wrote: post #170
amelius wrote: post #143

Which is more likely: ancient people sacificing their children, or ancient writers wanting to mess with future historians or simply writing horror?

History as social science was basically invented between 19th and 20th century. Ancient writers generally had agenda and they happily filled missing pieces with ideologically-fueled speculation.

but, intelligence is not new. There were astute readers at that time, too. So there must have been a spectrum, and reading people knew something about that spectrum.. from fawning sycophants of the current despot, to tellers of tall tales, to scholars, and those close to traders and travelers.

Re: Ancient Carthaginians did sacrifice their children (2014)

#206

Post by c00lio »

baryphonic wrote: post #204
c00lio wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One needs to be very careful about which things to label human sacrifice. It is possible to be very "inclusive" there. One popular example is the expression "sacrificed on the altar of progress", and the works of philosophers such as Adorno and Horckheimer on the topic, who argued that human sacrifice just takes a different form in modern civilisation, but is still present e.g. as victims of car traffic, suicides fro…

> One popular example is the expression "sacrificed on the altar of progress", and the works of philosophers such as Adorno and Horckheimer on the topic, who argued that human sacrifice just takes a different form in modern civilisation, but is still present e.g. as victims of car traffic, suicides from depression or industrial accidents. Imho, this only serves to hinder any kind of productive discussion because thin…

No. Human sacrifice, in the definition I have given, has a clearly defined purpose (which I didn't state, because I thought this was implicit): Winning favour with the god(s). That only works in any religion I know of if you declare the purpose of making a sacrifice before the gods in some way.

The Romans did this through the ritual of immolation, where the animal was marked as a sacrifice by spreading mola (wheat spelt) and salsa (salt) on it. No immolation, no sacrifice. If they killed someone without immolation, to them it didn't have the purpose of pleasing the gods and thus wasn't human sacrifice. Edit: "immolation" in this context might be somewhat different in the english meaning. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mola_salsa for what I mean.

A lot of religions (don't know about the Roman in that aspect) also frown upon the intent of a sacrifice being impure: If you do the sacrifice with more than just the goal of pleasing God, e.g. to additionally get rid of that obnoxious goat/cock/person/..., then God won't be pleased.

Re: Ancient Carthaginians did sacrifice their children (2014)

#207

Post by TechnicalVault »

inglor_cz wrote: post #203
ramblenode wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Psychologically, I don't think the value of children has changed. Mourning the death of children is as ancient a literary trope as any. But from a microeconomic point of view, children were more valuable in pre-industrial times. Most people worked in agriculture or the trades and lived in multi-generation households, and children were necessary to help with chores and eventually take over the main occupation and care…

"Mourning the death of children is as ancient a literary trope as any." It might have been different between infants and slightly older children. The really young ones died all too often.

That is definitely true, we have diaries from folks who lived in the 1600s in London where you have the different reactions to their children dying at different age. They loved and cared for them but with close to a quarter of kids dying in their first year, it was something most families came to expect and experience but that they never completely numb to. When an older child died, it was an even bigger deal because they'd got past that dangerous first few years and you weren't expecting it.

Re: Ancient Carthaginians did sacrifice their children (2014)

#208

Post by Animats »

trilbyglens wrote: post #184
transducers wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically the gods did not look favorably on inferior product being placed on the alter. Even King Kong demands the hottest young babe in the tribe, does he not? Did anyone ever “sacrifice” hoary old men or women to gods? (Only in passage of kingship did humans ritually kille the elder males.) So “religious” thinking would tend to demand something dear. This is inline with an inherent bug in human psyche — a false th…

We live in an age so devoid of sacrifice that it's hard for us to wrap our heads around why this was so common and so important. This act would add a layer of irrefutable legitimacy to the groups religious beliefs, and as such would make those beliefs into a unbreakable social bond. Grief is a powerful social glue, and when you use it so intentionally and solemnly it becomes a core part of the social fabric that held…

There are gangs where you have to kill somebody to become a full member. Same concept.

Re: Ancient Carthaginians did sacrifice their children (2014)

#210

Post by jlawson »

slim wrote: post #201
amelius wrote: post #143

Which is more likely: ancient people sacificing their children, or ancient writers wanting to mess with future historians or simply writing horror?

I think the fact that it seems incredible to us that people could sacrifice their children is a testament to the advance of civilisation. children were not always so precious. if memory does not fail me, in the 20th century, there were still laws that stated that children were property of their parents who disposed of their lifes as they wish. that means you could kill your child without consequences. child labor : l…

They lived at the Malthusian population limit of their ecosystem anyway.

Sacrificing children was just another way to get rid of excess population and would absolutely improve the lives of whoever was left.

Any children not sacrificed would have to die by disease, war, or starvation at some point anyway, because again, the population cannot grow above the Malthusian limit.

This core concept - that preindustrial people all lived at their Malthusian population limit - is incredibly important in understanding the preindustrial world and it's shocking that it's not more broadly understood and applied.

Post reply on HN