Org Mobile Site
Thread: Child Sacrifice
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky:
I've always heard that that was added later to 'tidy' it up. But yeah, he kills his kid and brings back a mistress after the war. Then his wife kills him while he's taking a bath and also his mistress and makes her lover king. Then Agamemnon's son kills the good queen and her lover and gets aquitted.
actually, yes it was. Agamemnon was said to have had her sacrificed to please some diety he offended, in order to safely reach and capture Troy. I wish I remembered the details, but all records I have are in KuwaitI've always heard that that was added later to 'tidy' it up. But yeah, he kills his kid and brings back a mistress after the war. Then his wife kills him while he's taking a bath and also his mistress and makes her lover king. Then Agamemnon's son kills the good queen and her lover and gets aquitted.
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon
Homer and Euripides on demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon
Homer and Euripides on demand.
thank you!
Regarding Roman human sacrifices: gladiator fights were originally a ritual fight to the death at the grave of a deceased and thus part of burial tradition. It was performed by 2 slaves and originally an Etruscan tradition, later adopted by the Romans. So it was basically human sacrifice. With time the cultic meaning got lost and became pure spectacle and bloodlust until, during the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutones, it became the gorefest organised by the state to please the people.
Also regarding the Bible: Think about the story of Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his firstborn son to Jehova. Jehova stops Abraham at the last minute, but you don't get the impression that this demand is extremely cruel or outragious or even extraordinary. It seems to be more extraordinary that a god might be pleased by the obedience being proven and does not demand any actual human sacrifice.
This is of course a most obvious reference to the religion of Baal but it depicts human sacrifice as quite conventional, not like the Roman sources on Carthage who focus on condemning the practice as outragious and barbaric. But there is of course quite a time gap in between those two sources.
Also regarding the Bible: Think about the story of Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his firstborn son to Jehova. Jehova stops Abraham at the last minute, but you don't get the impression that this demand is extremely cruel or outragious or even extraordinary. It seems to be more extraordinary that a god might be pleased by the obedience being proven and does not demand any actual human sacrifice.
This is of course a most obvious reference to the religion of Baal but it depicts human sacrifice as quite conventional, not like the Roman sources on Carthage who focus on condemning the practice as outragious and barbaric. But there is of course quite a time gap in between those two sources.
Originally Posted by Methuselah:
I hate to sound like a jerk, KosaK, but I learnt long ago not to completely trust those documentries on the history channel. I think it'd be best to hear the views of a EB Member on this matter. Most of them, after all, are historians by practice.
Never said i believed it or infact that it was from the history channel..which i detest for the frequent contradictions in it...I hate to sound like a jerk, KosaK, but I learnt long ago not to completely trust those documentries on the history channel. I think it'd be best to hear the views of a EB Member on this matter. Most of them, after all, are historians by practice.
Anyway, Did the Romans not bury two greeks and two gauls alive a few times?
Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.
Originally Posted by Antinous:
Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.
KozaK13 is making reference to the events following the great Roman defeat at Cannae, Livy 22.57:Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.
Meanwhile on the authority of the Sacred Books some unusual rites were performed: one of them consisted in burying alive in the cattle market a pair of Gauls, male and female, and a pair of Greeks. The burial was in a walled enclosure, which had been stained with the blood of human sacrifice - a most un-Roman rite.
Well you learn somthing new every day.
Originally Posted by Antinous:
Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.
Vestal Virgins got buried alive periodically when they were found to have slept with someone.Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky:
Vestal Virgins got buried alive periodically when they were found to have slept with someone.
That was because it was illegal to kill them, they weren't actually burried, they were walled up underground with food and water. That way you didn't offend the Gods, because you hadn't actually killed them.Vestal Virgins got buried alive periodically when they were found to have slept with someone.
Originally Posted by Antinous:
I know that Achilles killed all the nobles that he found but that also is a part of the fact that Achilles did not give mercy to his victims. Plus this wasn't ritual sacrifice as much as it was revenge for the death of Patroclus, if you notice in the Illiad Achilles vows never to give mercy to the trojans ever again after Patroclus was killed by Hector.
Nope, he killed twelve young Trojans before the funeral pire along with the horses, oxen etc., book 23. You can check.I know that Achilles killed all the nobles that he found but that also is a part of the fact that Achilles did not give mercy to his victims. Plus this wasn't ritual sacrifice as much as it was revenge for the death of Patroclus, if you notice in the Illiad Achilles vows never to give mercy to the trojans ever again after Patroclus was killed by Hector.
Also, there is contested evidence that the wives of Makedonian kings were killed when their husbands died.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
That was because it was illegal to kill them, they weren't actually burried, they were walled up underground with food and water. That way you didn't offend the Gods, because you hadn't actually killed them.
I know that, but I don't think that would hold up in a modern court. "I didn't kill her, I buried her in a small room with some water and food for a few days with no intention of digging her up."That was because it was illegal to kill them, they weren't actually burried, they were walled up underground with food and water. That way you didn't offend the Gods, because you hadn't actually killed them.
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky:
Vestal Virgins got buried alive periodically when they were found to have slept with someone.
That was a punishment, not torture or sacrifice.Vestal Virgins got buried alive periodically when they were found to have slept with someone.
That doesn't sound like murder at all.(with lots of sarcasm)
Originally Posted by Atilius:
That was a punishment, not torture or sacrifice.
And how do the psychological and physical effects of being buried alive not factor in?That was a punishment, not torture or sacrifice.
I'm sure they were left with an oversized butter knife.
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky:
And how do the psychological and physical effects of being buried alive not factor in?
What? My point was that you quoted Antinous' post: And how do the psychological and physical effects of being buried alive not factor in?
Originally Posted by Antinous:
Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.
and responded with an example of something that was neither torture nor sacrifice.Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.
That sure does sound like torture. There is no way that can be put as a punishment. If I was one of those women I would ask for a special drink made of hemlock for myself.
Originally Posted by Antinous:
If I was one of those women I would ask for a special drink made of hemlock for myself.
Maybe they were given something like that..If I was one of those women I would ask for a special drink made of hemlock for myself.
By the way has anyone of you heard of any evidence of such a "Punishment" having been found?
Originally Posted by Antinous:
That sure does sound like torture. There is no way that can be put as a punishment. If I was one of those women I would ask for a special drink made of hemlock for myself.
It was not torture. We have said, it was a punishment because killing her was illegal under any circumstances. Nor would she be given hemlock, as that would be allowing her to commit suicide. This a religious issue, not a jurisprudal one.That sure does sound like torture. There is no way that can be put as a punishment. If I was one of those women I would ask for a special drink made of hemlock for myself.
If you don't like it either get over it or study another culture.
Wow, thanks guys! This has started a nice little discussion.
Originally Posted by :
What? My point was that you quoted Antinous' post and responded with an example of something that was neither torture nor sacrifice.
You're right, it was just something that came to mind in relation to buried alive rather than the latter part.What? My point was that you quoted Antinous' post and responded with an example of something that was neither torture nor sacrifice.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
It was not torture. We have said, it was a punishment because killing her was illegal under any circumstances. Nor would she be given hemlock, as that would be allowing her to commit suicide. This a religious issue, not a jurisprudal one.
If you don't like it either get over it or study another culture.
Way to over react: "You object to part, therefore you reject the whole." I guess you love everything associated with Roman culture huh? It was not torture. We have said, it was a punishment because killing her was illegal under any circumstances. Nor would she be given hemlock, as that would be allowing her to commit suicide. This a religious issue, not a jurisprudal one.
If you don't like it either get over it or study another culture.
Look, we aren't saying that Roman culture = bad, we were saying that that punishment would totally suck. We were also saying that it had a side effect of inflicting mental distress. If you've read or seen commentary by people who have actually been buried alive, the most common sentiment is that they never want to do it again because its a psychologically terrifying experience. There is something primally terrifying in being buried alive.
So yes it was a punishment. We aren't saying that the primary intent wasn't punsihment. We are just saying that there is an element of torture that is a side effect of being buried alive because many of us would consider being placed in a position like that extremely terrifying.
Originally Posted by :
tor⋅ture /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tawr-cher] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object) 6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1530–40; < LL tortūra a twisting, torment, torture. See tort, -ure
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
On a side note: I don't really see what's wrong with calling it a ritualized killing when you understand the intent and the fact that its a way to get around a law.tor⋅ture /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tawr-cher] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object) 6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1530–40; < LL tortūra a twisting, torment, torture. See tort, -ure
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
Yeah, but you overlooked the second part of the definition quoted by you: "as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty".
The punishment was not intended to get any kind of information or to be cruel. The cruelty was not the intention, it was more kind of a "byproduct" of the punishment. This is not meant as a defense of burying someone alive but it certainly is not torture. Also it's not correct to call it ritualized killing because they were not "actively" killing them, they were letting them die.
From an ethical point of view the difference is certainly marginal, but from a juristic point of view it is important.
That's what Philipvs wanted to say.
The punishment was not intended to get any kind of information or to be cruel. The cruelty was not the intention, it was more kind of a "byproduct" of the punishment. This is not meant as a defense of burying someone alive but it certainly is not torture. Also it's not correct to call it ritualized killing because they were not "actively" killing them, they were letting them die.
From an ethical point of view the difference is certainly marginal, but from a juristic point of view it is important.
That's what Philipvs wanted to say.
Thankyou, theat is a much better way of putting it.
You also missinterpreted my closing comment, however. I was not overreacting, I was responding to Antinous insistence that it must be torture, I will quote something Prof. D. Braund said once, "I am not required to like the cultures I study."
Exactly so, trying to impose any anachronistic moral standard on an ancient, and dead, culture is utterly pointless.
Now, it is written that the Romans enclosed Vestal Virgins below ground instead of killing them. Whether or not the then died is something the Romans are actually a bit fuzzy on. Remember that the Roman religion had an underworld below the ground, not a heaven above. The Roman understanding of spatial metaphysics meant that they could reasonable maintain the beleath that they were not actually killing the women, technically at least.
Of course, that doesn't mean that they actually believed any of this.
You also missinterpreted my closing comment, however. I was not overreacting, I was responding to Antinous insistence that it must be torture, I will quote something Prof. D. Braund said once, "I am not required to like the cultures I study."
Exactly so, trying to impose any anachronistic moral standard on an ancient, and dead, culture is utterly pointless.
Now, it is written that the Romans enclosed Vestal Virgins below ground instead of killing them. Whether or not the then died is something the Romans are actually a bit fuzzy on. Remember that the Roman religion had an underworld below the ground, not a heaven above. The Roman understanding of spatial metaphysics meant that they could reasonable maintain the beleath that they were not actually killing the women, technically at least.
Of course, that doesn't mean that they actually believed any of this.
Originally Posted by machinor:
Yeah, but you overlooked the second part of the definition quoted by you: "as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty".
I interpreted it as a list of things as in:Yeah, but you overlooked the second part of the definition quoted by you: "as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty".
Originally Posted by :
The act of inflicting excruciating pain as punishment or revenge.
The act of inflicting excruciating pain as a means of getting a confession or information.
The act of inflicting excruciating pain for sheer cruelty.
@PVC, glad we talked things out. Sorry for over reacting to a preceived overreaction. The act of inflicting excruciating pain as punishment or revenge.
The act of inflicting excruciating pain as a means of getting a confession or information.
The act of inflicting excruciating pain for sheer cruelty.
Yeah I didn't mean to make you angry.
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky:
I interpreted it as a list of things as in:
@PVC, glad we talked things out. Sorry for over reacting to a preceived overreaction.
That's fine, bear in mind with a word that it always carries all associations with it, not just the one you intended.I interpreted it as a list of things as in:
@PVC, glad we talked things out. Sorry for over reacting to a preceived overreaction.
Originally Posted by Antinous:
Yeah I didn't mean to make you angry.
You haven't, there is no reason for me to be angry. If I am abrupt it is because I am responding to your points, three years at a university will lead to a sparse writing style when you have such small word-limits.Yeah I didn't mean to make you angry.
Lancel's terrific book on Carthage does talk about the child sacrifices. Excavations have not confirmed the reality of the collective sacrifices mentioned by Diodorus, but it does show that in the earliest times the "sacrifices" were either newborn or stillborn babies and in the fourth century deposits they are largely of children aged one to three, and one out of three urns would contain remains of two or more children. When you notice at certain periods that animals are "substituted" in the burial urns it does seem to point more towards the possibility that these were indeed sacrifices instead of just burials. Lancel seems to me to doubt that they were just burials of infants in a time of high infant mortality rates - the children aged two to four that were common in some burials seems to indicate to him that they were sacrifices instead of just burials (the slightly older ages being outside the ranges where the highest mortality rates occur). The fact that animals' remains are found in the same urns with those older children would seem to point their sacrifices and not just burial. He does say firmly that evidence "in its present state does not permit a categorical denial of the reality of Carthaginian human sacrifice."
Why was it that the carthaginians had to use children mainly for the sacrifice to Baal instead of animals?
Well, think about it. Which would you value more? My guess would be that when times were good they used animals, when things went wrong they offered the "proper" sacrifice.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO