Carthaginian baby-killers again

[Erpingham]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Mark G]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Duncan Head]

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?

That 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.

That 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, for instance?

However, 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.

[Mark G]

"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?

[tobypartridge]

<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>

[Patrick Waterson]

Agreed.  Play the ball not the man, please.

[Mark]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[Chuck the Grey]

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. 

[Jim Webster]

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

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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 to avoid duplication.