Scholar suggests that the Carthaginians did sacrifice infants after all:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/21/carthaginians-sacrificed-own-children-study (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/21/carthaginians-sacrificed-own-children-study)
Given their Phoenician origin, this is probably not too great a surprise. The enlightening part is that some scholars have managed to overcome their current cultural norms and actually look dispassionately at the evidence.
It is concerning that there is such a politically correct consensus amongst academics. It is particularly dangerous in a discipline such as archaeology or history where the evidence is imperfect anyway. Once they start suppressing the evidence because the truth is uncomfortable it is just too easy for politically inspired lies to become the accepted story.
Roy
I'm not sure this is about political correctness as much as liberal sensibilities. People just don't want to think about a society in which it was right and proper to sacrifice children. Also helped along by scholars' scepticism that Roman accounts weren't just demonising propoganda of a "babies on bayonets" type. IIRC the last "definitive" study was based on archaeological bone analysis, not just sentiment. As the report states, the science behind this is challenged in the new study.
Aha, I see 'politically correct' and 'liberal sensibilities' as congruent concepts.That's not to say that other political persuasions do not censor views, but the threat from Stalinists and Nazis is very weak nowadays. The threat from those who want to see 'liberal, in the sense of soft left views imposed on others by limiting debate and controlling vocabulary is , at the moment, severe.
As an example, I registered on a site that promotes petitions. I think thesis a good idea, that people should be able to express their wishes by electronic democracy. Recently there was a petition I refused, it was that the nutty UKIP councillor who believed that God was punishing us with floods because homosexual marriage was legitimised, should resign. To me there is a clear and present danger that minority (and even majority) opinions are not heard and that danger currently comes from a particular quarter.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I see the 'Carthaginians sacrificing babies' thing in this light . Whatever view we have should be based on the evidence, not some prior wish that fits a political view.
At least there is now a book by Jean Manco that puts the view, with evidence, that the various invasions of Europe at the end of the Dark Ages were in fact invasions and leave genetic traces. I contrast that with the nonsense that is cited about the Ostrogoths being an army and not a people where all sorts of evidence is ignored to try and justify a view that there was not really migration.
Roy
Roy
Quote from: aligern on January 23, 2014, 01:55:31 PM
Aha, I see 'politically correct' and 'liberal sensibilities' as congruent concepts.
Roy
Ah that is where we differ :) But to go into that would rather take us off track. Anyway, I don't think political correctness is what we face here. It is a failure of historians and archaeologists to face up to the fact that we can have a civilised and sophisticated society which accepts as a normal state of affairs that the smooth running of the family and state can need the murder of babies. It is one of the difficulties we face if we take the "they are people like us" school line. But I'd rather historians tackle the difficulties rather than hid from them.
Me too. Ancient peoples are not like us . They gave very different moralities and would see some of the things we do such as abolishing slavery or allowing women and poor people to vote as quite mad.
roy
The child sacrifice line did come from the victors, so as something hard to believe, it wasn't.
Just as we don't believe the jerries bayonetted Belgian babies in 14.
I don't see any politics behind not looking for proof it ws true , just an expectation it wouldn't be until some more direct evidence was found - which it now has been.
Liberal bias would be suppressing the find now, or arguing it was planted for roman investigators to find
But it came from victors who beat plenty of other peoples and did not accuse them of the same thing. Where those victors accuse Celts of head hunting we have evidence for it. So the predisposition should be to believe those victors.
Roy
It would be a predisposition to believe something at odds with most perceptions of human nature.
And Carthage is not your normal roman enemy.
Why is Carthage not normal? Rome worked itself up about every enemy. They managed plenty of paranoia about Celts and Germans, even Macedonians. Rome had a persecution complex that would have done Stalin proud.
R
Because Carthage nearly won, and the romans knew it
Well, the Gauls occupied Rome, the Macedonians were the descendants of Alexander and the Samnites sent a Roman army under the Yoke. Was it Cato who raised the question ' Carthago delenda est?' at each debate of the Senate? He had to raise the topic because he feared that the Romans were no longer afraid of Carthage .
Roy
Well, since you put it like that, i guess it must all be a liberal conspiracy amongst archeologists and classicists (no doubt all sandal wearing fellow travellers to a man) who have suppress the notion that child sacrifice may have occurred in one of the great civilisations of the world. Its hardly the sort of thing one would accuse an opponent of normally, and is entirely the sort of thing you expect to find when you start looking.
Its Probably the same sort of attitude which explains why we have yet to start excavating Belgium searching for evidence of bayonette wounds in infants there too.
Good thing the guardian exposed this, as the telegraph and mail have clearly brought into the conspiracy, along with all those oxford dons of the last two centuries
Quote from: Mark G on January 25, 2014, 11:26:33 AM
Good thing the guardian exposed this, as the telegraph and mail have clearly brought into the conspiracy, along with all those oxford dons of the last two centuries
;D
The two things the Romans traditionally accused the Carthaginians of were cowardice (hiring mercenaries to fight for them) and perfidy (a case of the pot calling the kettle extremely sooty). These themes recur in Livy's pre-battle speeches, but not once are the Carthaginains denigrated as dastardly infant incinerators - presumably the Romans felt that what they did with their children was up to them, and if anything, infant sacrifice meant less Carthaginians to fight in future.
So it is not Roman propaganda. Punic treachery, yes. Punic cowardice, yes. Punic incineratory infanticide, no.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 25, 2014, 12:34:56 PM
So it is not Roman propaganda. Punic treachery, yes. Punic cowardice, yes. Punic incineratory infanticide, no.
Thanks for that Patrick - I had always thought they did, so it is interesting to find I've bought into a myth.
As I've said, I don't agree with this left-leaning conspiracy, but it does make an interesting case study in how we judge the past according to our own standards.
Well there is judging the past according to your own standards and there is portraying the past in a way that supports a political view of the present and of how the future should be. idon't think this applies only to archaeologists, but to many people in public life who are determined that debate and vocabulary shall only be in terms and language that predicate an answer that fits their point of view.
I could elaborate, but it would be OT unless we have more specific examples introduced.
Might I cite, for example Cruikshank's point of view on the battle of Dunnichen 685, where it is considerably overwritten as if it was the foundation point of Scotland:-))
We are , of course, in the year in which there will be a great deal of this and in this case, not left leaning.
Roy
Ill have to look that up. A foundation point 200 years before mcalpine beggars belief.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 25, 2014, 01:05:54 PM
As I've said, I don't agree with this left-leaning conspiracy, but it does make an interesting case study in how we judge the past according to our own standards.
I do not agree with them either. ;)
But I do wish they would keep political correctness and revisionism out of history.
Quote from: aligern on January 25, 2014, 01:35:52 PM
I could elaborate, but it would be OT unless we have more specific examples introduced.
Introducing a specific example or examples in a new thread might be acceptable, assuming members can swap thoughts without it developing into a political argument (given the general good nature of our members I think we can do this). The focus might be on how cultural standards impact historical research undertaken and conclusions reached, and in what way and to what extent this can (or does) distort our perception of the past.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 25, 2014, 07:48:27 PM
But I do wish they would keep political correctness and revisionism out of history.
Political correctness by all means but revisionism? If we do not keep looking at history in different ways, we can become set in our ways and fail to incorporate new information or insights.
When I was at university (back in Noah's day) we studied a phenomenon in European prehistory called the Great Elm Decline. The pollen record showed across Northern Europe a reduction in Elm trees. The text book explanation was that farmers had all become convinced that the best winter fodder was elm leaves so had destroyed all the elm trees. Leaving aside the fact that historical tree fodder was harvested from trees without killing them (not very sustainable) we were in the middle of a Europe wide pandemic called Dutch Elm disease. Now, there is no reason to think Dutch Elm disease was the cause but it doesn't seem to have occured to older archaeologists that there might be tree pandemics. Now we see them everywhere all the time and a revisionist would have to stop us jumping to that conclusion. Maybe a bit of a digression but hopefully less politically charged :)
I'd be up for. a thread on the drivers of changing historical interpretations.
To an extent it is acceptable to revise the past in light of current need, as long as there is a solid grounding in fact, or rather that the facts are not distorted or ignored. After all there is no written history that is totally free of bias.
Roy
I guess I live in a cave. I was not aware that the Carthaginian sacrifice of children to Baal was passe. Good to hear that the PC rewrite of history is being exposed for what it is.
On a related exposure note, I the Romans, like the Spartans, left unwanted children in the fields to die of exposure. This was quite common in antiquity (and disturbingly common today).
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/familyanddailylife/qt/072707exposure.htm relates.
See also "Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire," by W. V. Harris. The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 84. (1994) and "The Exposure of Infants in Roman Law and Practice," by Max Radin The Classical Journal, Vol. 20, No. 6. (Mar., 1925) etc etc.
Absolutely, but equally ,lets keep straw men out of it.
So far the only cruikshank ive found is Dan, who is about as close to an historian as Michael Gove or Charles Clarke.
Not at all sources worth giving a fart for!
Try Cruickshank?
Roy
Could it be this?
Cruickshank, Graeme (1991), The Battle of Dunnichen: an account of the Pictish victory at the Battle of Dunnichen, also known as Nechtansmere, fought on 20th May 685, Balgavies, Angus: Pinkfoot Press
A quick google search finds him described as an Edinburgh-based historian and a specialist in Pictish history.
Yes, that's the man. he has a good article in 'Alba' on the Aberlemno stone and has written two books about Dunnichen.
I like the book by Fraser on Dunnichen which is more balanced, but there are some good thoughts in Cruikshank.
Roy
Ok, found him.
Not as bad as portrayed Roy. But quite weak, none the less.
Its not a "from this point we are Scotland", just a "had the other guy won, Scotland may not have come about",
Which is the usual sort of discovery channel gibberish that crops up, but hardly worth getting too excited about .
Fraser's book on. dunnichen is better.
Here's a quote from Cruickshank's Dunnichen, revised 1999 p43
At the height of the debate Geoffrey Barrow (formerly professor of Scottish History at Edinburgh University) said in the Scotsman that the Battle of Dunnichen 'ranks alongside Bannockburn in importance' and no one who has studied the subject would disagree with that opinion.
Roy
I am looking at Dunnichen at the moment as I am planning a scenario for it with Mark Fry for the Bournemouth competition. Its main attraction is that we know a little bit about it, especially if the Aberlemno stone can be taken as representative of the battle.
Dunnichen is on a path which eventually leads to a united Scotland, which needs a Pictish kingdom that is united so that McAlpin can take it over and create a dominant bloc in Scotland. However, after Dunnichen the Picts win battles and so do the Northumbrians. Northumbrian decline is IMO more to do with their internal problems in England and the geography of their kingdom than one battle in the seventh century. Cruickshank gives Bridei, the Pict King, five war aims which is more than stretching a point. The battle took place in Pictish territory and likely Ecgfrith was doing the invading. Most likely Bridei's aim was to fend off an attack from his brother in law who was responding to Bridei stopping tribute payments.
Most likely had Bridei lost tribute would have been reimposed, but the more united Pictland that Bridei had built was always likely to be united whether by Picts, Scots or Norse and Northumbria would either be split and the Northern half be absorbed or , just maybe the Durham and Northumberland section become part of Scotland.
What I feel Crickshank does is see Northumbria as England, which it wasn't because that nationality was still negotiable at the time. The Northumbrian/ Anglian settling of the area up to the Forth is as much part of Scotland as the other components, which is no doubt why there are Scots today with names such as Wilson.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 25, 2014, 12:34:56 PM
So it is not Roman propaganda. Punic treachery, yes. Punic cowardice, yes. Punic incineratory infanticide, no.
Quintus Curtius and Justin were Romans, and I would class Tertullian and Augustine as Roman, too. But the main sources of the child-sacrifice topos do seem to have been Greeks.
Quote from: aligern on January 23, 2014, 12:39:26 PM
It is concerning that there is such a politically correct consensus amongst academics.
It is disappointing that some people prefer to accept innuendo about "politically correct consensus" rather than engaging with the real difficulties of the source material.
http://www.livescience.com/23298-carthage-graveyard-not-child-sacrifice.html (http://www.livescience.com/23298-carthage-graveyard-not-child-sacrifice.html) summarises a recent anti-sacrifice article and suggests that one of the key arguments is a scientific disagreement about the effect of cremation on infant teeth.
Quote from: Josephine Quinn as cited in the Guardian"The inscriptions are unequivocal: time and again we find the explanation that the gods 'heard my voice and blessed me'. It cannot be that so many children conveniently happened to die at just the right time to become an offering – and in any case a poorly or dead child would make a pretty feeble offering if you're already worried about the gods rejecting it."
...
Although hundreds of remains were found, there were far too few to represent all the stillbirth and infant deaths of Carthage. According to Quinn, there were perhaps 25 such burials a year, for a city of perhaps 500,000 people.
So there are too many infant burials to be convincing, but not enough for all the infant deaths in Carthage? Personally I'm inclined to the child-sacrifice side of the argument, but even so I am not so far impressed by the quality of Quinn's arguments.
http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html
Has a description of the case against Carthaginian child sacrifice juxtaposed with an piece describing Roman infanticide in a brothel. Dare we presume that the site is a cheerleader for Phoenician values:-))
Roy
Just rereading the original and the antiquity abstract plus the links, the major point of contention appears to be scientific (around aging cremated infant bones, especially teeth). Though the news article mentions the discomfort of fellow academics with the pro-sacrifice findings, I'm not seeing any sign of a conspiracy to suppress evidence. Without a much deeper study of the beliefs of the archaeologists involved it would be hard to be sure how baggage they are approaching the issue with.
I think one point that I had glossed over in the original report was the statement that "we like to think the ancients were people like us but really they weren't". It is certainly more comforting a thought than the fact that what keeps us from barbarism is a set of social values rather than we are intrinsically more advanced :) I suppose the counter position "they were people like us but they thought differently" is equally subjective though.
The discomfort of the academics is expressed as, that's unbelievable, it can't be true, you must have something wrong. That's not quite the same as an argument over the aging of bones, its a defensive attitude that seems to be rooted in it being unacceptable to allege that an Ancient people were , to modern eyes, cruel and unnatural.
That attitude might be rooted in several modern attitudes,
That children are precious therefore they must always have been so.
That the Carthaginians are Africans and must be portrayed in a positive light
That Romans are some sort of proto fascists and all their evidence is suspect.
You must be able to dream up other motivations.
If other academics were to say that alleging baby sacrifice goes against the evidence of xyz how do you counter that? then That would be fair enough.
Its a bit like Climate change where denial has become heresy rather than a different interpretation. I can understand that because there is both an emotionalism engendered by environmental concerns and ,cynically, many well paid research jobs and projects attached.
However, we are unlikely to have someone who knows tell us what the motivation for this particular reaction to Quinn's research is.
Roy
I think you are reading far too much into this Roy.
especially these two
That the Carthaginians are Africans and must be portrayed in a positive light
That Romans are some sort of proto fascists and all their evidence is suspect.
I just offer those as possible motives I don't know what motivates a lot of academics to take a closed viewpoint on something, but I'd believe any of them.
The BBC political editor ?Robinson recently came out and stated that the BBC had had a conspiracy to not talk about immigration lest the discussion arouse racist sentiments in the UK population. There are academics that are determined that the barbarian movements in the late Antique, Early Medieval period shall not be termed invasions or conquests because this had been the view of historians espoused by the Third Reich. it would be naive not to think that academics have systematic prejudices.
It would be naive not to read Niall Fergusson's work and not take into consideration that he has certain views about the place of the West in world history.
Erpingham suggests we have a separate thread on cultural influences , are you up for that?
Roy
Quote from: aligern on January 27, 2014, 05:24:54 PM
The discomfort of the academics is expressed as, that's unbelievable, it can't be true, you must have something wrong.
According to Quinn. She's a contemporary source, but is she an unbiased one?
QuoteThat Romans are some sort of proto fascists and all their evidence is suspect.
All ancient evidence is suspect, surely? As Quinn is quoted as saying, "we like to think the ancients were people like us but really they weren't": and that includes Greek and Roman "historians", who certainly weren't "unbiased" in the modern sense.
QuoteThat Romans are some sort of proto fascists ...
Well, they did give us the
fasces, didn't they? :)
"If other academics were to say that alleging baby sacrifice goes against the evidence of xyz how do you counter that? then That would be fair enough."
As in the discussions about the ageing of teeth alluded to at http://www.livescience.com/23298-carthage-graveyard-not-child-sacrifice.html (http://www.livescience.com/23298-carthage-graveyard-not-child-sacrifice.html), for instance?
QuoteHowever, we are unlikely to have someone who knows tell us what the motivation for this particular reaction to Quinn's research is.
Or even whether that reaction actually exists.
"I just offer those as possible motives I don't know what motivates a lot of academics to take a closed viewpoint on something, but I'd believe any of them."
that is the point Ro.
You see those motives, with no evidence, and therefore ascribe them to fact based entirely on your prejudices.
so who is the biased actor in this play? and who is betraying their own (conservative) political correctness?
<moderator mode>
Let's keep this thread from descending into direct personal attacks please.
We can talk about the role of cultural bias in archaeology/history without talking about each other's political views pejoratively.
Let's keep this as a respectful academic forum of debate.
</moderator mode>
Agreed. Play the ball not the man, please.
Just coming to this slightly late, having seen the issue raised earlier today:
- per Patrick/Toby please keep a cool head in discussions, in general this has been one of the advantages of this forum since inception
- ... and also please try to avoid bring in current UK (or anywhere else) politics at all, since that is absolutely guaranteed to start inflaming matters
That's not a question of apportioning blame, just a reminder.
M
Quote from: aligern on January 26, 2014, 11:09:44 PM
http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html
Has a description of the case against Carthaginian child sacrifice juxtaposed with an piece describing Roman infanticide in a brothel. Dare we presume that the site is a cheerleader for Phoenician values:-))
Roy
If it was a cheerleader for Phoenician values, it would have charged you for access :-)
Jim
I think one reason some people are uncomfortable with the idea that the ancients were very different to us is that it hints at the transitory nature of values.
Since the enlightenment that has been this idea of progress and of things getting better. Whilst that is less prevalent now, there is still the feeling that in many things we're more civilised.
The idea that in two or four centuries time our descendants might pillory us as the loons who believed in gay marriage or currency unions, or big brother house, or global warming, fracking or whatever etc is far to disturbing for some people to contemplate :-)
(It's not that they will be right, or that we are right, it's just that attitudes change.
Jim
I have been following this thread with interest and would like to share some of my thoughts.
A long time ago in a university far, far away, actually just up the road a bit, I had a seminar on the writing of history. One of the guiding principals that was pounded into my head was never to judge the past by current values, standards, beliefs etc. This was the academic standard for historians at that time. I have noticed that this principal is now regarded as passé by some academics. Case in point, I was watching Ken Burn's series on the American Civil War and there was an interview with a historian teaching at Harvard. The historian stated that she did not believe it was wrong to judge the past by current values. I was surprised that a historian from one of the most highly regarded universities in America would espouse such a belief. Unfortunately, this is not the only such incident I have since noticed in history, archeology, or anthropology.
As a card carrying curmudgeon, I've come to believe that the basic principals of rational inquiry, state your hypothesis, examine all the evidence, test your hypothesis, repeat as needed, is no longer being rigorously applied in some academic circles. Simply stated, adjust the evidence to fit your hypothesis rather than adjust your hypothesis to match the evidence. Why this has happened is open to debate.
I will now end my rant and go have dinner. ;)
Hi Chuck
Just to sort of add to the thrust of your story, perhaps twenty five years ago in our wargames club a young lad came to some of us older ones (We'd probably reached thirty or so by then) and laid before us his problem.
His history teacher had given him the homework, 'Empathise with the defenders of Richmond'. Obviously she had watched 'Gone with the Wind'.
So he knew we'd read a lot of stuff, so what were the defenders of Richmond like?
So we racked our brains, and one of our number remembered a quote made by one of the defenders of somewhere during the ACW where, when asked why they hadn't dug trenches etc, the defender had replied with some heat, "Digging's for niggers"
As I write that I'm not even sure the software will let the message post, and this is one of the few forums I'd post it to.
A week later the lad came in, he'd been put through the mill and threatened with all sorts of things, up to and including expulsion, indeed his parents had been summoned.
I think it must have been his mother who pointed out it was the teachers fault, she'd asked him the question, he'd answered it honestly.
Jim
And hence all the agonising about the National Curriculum in England. History cannot be taught without some political point of view. That is because some things have to be included and some excluded and there is not enough time to cover everything. so should the teacher choose to have Mary Seacole or Florence Nightingale as the subject of a lesson or Disraeli, or the Chartists, or Wellington when the curriculum is designed it must have an objective and if that objective is how we came to be here then who are we? If we are the sum of all the groups that have arrived here over the years then pity the poor teacher. I understand that the French have it sorted in that what is taught is the history of France and that by arriving in the country people have accepted that they have joined France and their ancestor is Clovis and Louis the XIV and that is it. Here in Britain the poor sods writing the curriculum get constant changes of objective.
What we should not do us pretend that History is in some way neutral .
By the way I have been to Richmond, it had huge fortifications around it. I won't guess who dug them.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on January 29, 2014, 09:06:43 AM
By the way I have been to Richmond, it had huge fortifications around it. I won't guess who dug them.
A look through
The Defence of Duffer's Drift by Ernest Swinton will suggest that the boy Jim mentions had empathised very successfully. ;)
It would be nice if we could continue this discussion in this thread (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1118.0) to avoid duplication.
Quote from: Chuck the Grey on January 29, 2014, 05:08:12 AM
As a card carrying curmudgeon, I've come to believe that the basic principals of rational inquiry, state your hypothesis, examine all the evidence, test your hypothesis, repeat as needed, is no longer being rigorously applied in some academic circles. Simply stated, adjust the evidence to fit your hypothesis rather than adjust your hypothesis to match the evidence. Why this has happened is open to debate.
No longer? I seriously doubt there was ever a golden age when such principles were universally applied in academic circles.
First, let me start with a correction. The historian in Ken Burn's The Civil War, Dr. Barbara Fields, teaches at Columbia University not Harvard. In my defense, she did receive her BA from Harvard.
I scanned The Civil War to find the exact quote. If you're interested, see Episode 3, "Forever Free" starting at 16:25 minutes. What Dr. Fields said was, "I lose patience with the argument that because of someone's time his limitations are excusable or even praiseworthy." Her statement is more elegant than my somewhat dim memory. I still disagree with her.
The problem with evaluating historical events, personalities, and decisions based on current values and beliefs is one of viewpoint. We are looking back and can see results, an advantage over the people of the time being studied. We also have to admit that our values have, hopefully, evolved from the values of the historical period as a result of their actions.
Our understanding of the past is also limited if we fail to understand the values, beliefs and social pressures faced by historical figures at that time. Inserting our beliefs and values into the past, perhaps forgetting or ignoring that they likely evolved from the historical period being studied, interferes with gaining a thorough understanding of the historical events.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 29, 2014, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck the Grey on January 29, 2014, 05:08:12 AM
As a card carrying curmudgeon, I've come to believe that the basic principals of rational inquiry, state your hypothesis, examine all the evidence, test your hypothesis, repeat as needed, is no longer being rigorously applied in some academic circles. Simply stated, adjust the evidence to fit your hypothesis rather than adjust your hypothesis to match the evidence. Why this has happened is open to debate.
No longer? I seriously doubt there was ever a golden age when such principles were universally applied in academic circles.
I agree that there never was a Golden Age. However, at the time I took the writing of history class, there was an expectation, for both faculty and students, that a rigorous approach to both research and writing was expected. I'm afraid that that expectation had declined over the years.