Child Sacrifice in Ancient Carthage
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 май 2024
- The civilization of Carthage stood as the great rival to Rome for empire and Mediterranean hegemony. They are one of the most fascinating, but also one of the most difficult classical civilizations to study, in large part due to a lack of evidence. What textual sources survive, however, mention a rather grim religious practice-child sacrifice.
At one point it was thought that this was simply anti-Carthaginian propaganda. But, in 1921, a large cemetery was discovered holding the remains of charred bones, often of infants. What was the Tophet of Carthage, and did they really engage in this practice?
SOURCES:
An Archaeological History of Carthaginian Imperialism, Pilkington
Carthage Must Be Destroyed, Miles
Aging cremated infants: the problem of sacrifice at the Tophet of Carthage, Smith et al
Cemetary or sacrifice? Infant burials at the Carthage Tophet, Smith et al
The Romans called one type of their military ditches "Carthaginian"- not because it had anything to do with the Carthaginians, but because the Romans thought it was a particularly nasty type of obstacle!
Yup. "Punic" was a synonym for "treacherous" and "deceitful"
@@DISTurbedwaffle918Which is ludicrous. They weren't any more sneaky or treacherous then any other ancient group. Pure prejudice.
Probably more like propaganda! Carthage came within a hair's breadth of wiping Rome off the map and Rome never forgot...or forgave.@@theangryholmesian4556
@@theangryholmesian4556
The use of "Dutch" as an insult (dating from the 17th century) survives in a minor way in modern English.
*Dutch Courage* for instance is artificial courage.
@@alanpennie8013
I still use that one, though the resistance of Dutch farmers against the WEF as of late has brought me around to admiring them.
I somehow saw the topic and assumed this was a toldinstone video, so when I clicked and heard your voice I was temporarily disoriented. Thanks for summarizing the info and going over how much archaeological evidence we actually have for the Carthaginians. Interesting to see the vast difference between civilizations that have faded and been subsumed by others and from those that did the subsuming.
He jumped to conclusions. The only evidence is bones. The other tissues were burned and there's also over 2000 years of decomposition if there was anything left. Basically 80% of the evidence is gone. It could have been sudden infant death syndrome because they were all under 1 year.
There's a tragic deficit of Phoenician history as a whole. I suspect that their influence and impact on the early iron age Mediterranean world is probably more significant than is currently understood. 'Western civilization' might have turned out radically different without the Phoenician ingredient. But we may never know.
I blame the Romans for that. Especially Cato. In fact, both Catos are horrible human beings
The loss of Phoenician sources is one of the most tragic things in Antiquity. They were everywhere, present in so many events, we are missing a huge part of the perspective of the Classical Mediterranean.
Imagine how much more well-rounded our knowledge of the era would be if we had not only the Greek and Roman, but also the Phoenician perspective.
@@Adsper2000vae victis
but we also have evidence of human sacrifice in cannanite baal cults too.
That’s racist
see we’re not allowed to talk about then because then you’ll fall down a rabbit-hole you’ll never escape… 😂 also yes, its racist 😂
@@mike-0451Go cry about it. 😭😭😭
@@slappy8941 You're not allowed to criticize jewish people.
Modern Blood Libel
Like most things in history, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle; I believe given the evidence that we do have, and given that the Carthaginian religion came out of the Phoenician religion in the Levant (which we have evidence of ritual child sacrifices being done) I think its reasonable to say that child sacrifices did happen, but they were probably a rarity and was a custom that was being phased out as the culture evolved, only done in extreme desperation to gain favor from the Gods in times of hardship. That being said, i think its silly to say that they were killing babies left right and center as if it was no big deal
Anyways, another fantastic video as always, always a pleasure watching your content :)
Child sacrifice still persists in some places, especially impoverished regions of Africa with a belief in traditional magic. They think a child, especially their own, is one of the greatest sacrifices they could give to appease their ancestors. I saw some podcasts with an african woman who was passing laws to make it easier to persecute
@@gryaznygreebjust horrific… hate to be that guy, but it reminds me of all the pedo cults in the upper echelons of society. Whos to say the practices didnt continue in the west when they could have very easily just gone underground?
@@gryaznygreeb Could I bother you for the name of that podcast / episode?
The Greeks and the Romans sacrificed children too.
on the contrary children were clearly very important to the Carthaginians given the elaborate headstones of the tophet which existed even for pre-natal deaths, which is unusual to say the least in the ancient world. Sacrifice would have been extremely traumatic and we have to remember that by all accounts the practice was for the noble families to sacrifice their own children, not slaves, so must have been done only in very severe times of crisis. Their chief joint-deity Tanit was also a mother figure and a patron to children so they would be risking displeasing her with excessive child sacrifice.
Another grim dimension to add to this is people were perhaps more willing to depart with their infant children if times were tough, because they might not have been able to take care of them anyway under the difficult circumstances when these sacrifices likely occurred.
That makes me want to cry.
I guess they figured the enemies are going to kill the babies anyway if they lose. They might as well do it themselves in a way that brings them survival.
It's a sad reality of life in a subsistence community that the people who you need to prioritise are those who are already fit, strong and healthy so that they can contribute and ensure the wider family and community does not starve. If you do not have enough food for everyone and need to choose, the children and the elderly get less because they can't farm.
Another factor to consider is that by a lot of accounts the child mortality for children under 2 years old was closer to 50%. A lot just died of natural causes. So losing a child by sacrificing it to God would be preferable to losing them to disease or infection if they were to die anyway.
Many other cultures had to face difficult, even terrible times, but never decided to resort to child sacrifices. There were no excuses.
It is interesting to note that the Romans themselves also practiced human sacrifice. To quote wikipedia:
"Human sacrifice in ancient Rome was rare but documented. After the Roman defeat at Cannae two Gauls and two Greeks were buried under the Forum Boarium, in a stone chamber "which had on a previous occasion [228 BC] also been polluted by human victims, a practice most repulsive to Roman feelings".[56] Livy avoids the word "sacrifice" in connection with this bloodless human life-offering; Plutarch does not. The rite was apparently repeated in 113 BC, preparatory to an invasion of Gaul. Its religious dimensions and purpose remain uncertain.[57]".
True.
But this was the killing of foreigners.
The peculiar horror of infant sacrifice was the killing of your own children.
They also strangled prisoners to death infront of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus after a triumph, wich seems to me like human sacrifice.
Absolutely, they were right into it. The famous "Triumph" given to victorious generals returning from campaign actually has its roots in an ancient religious ritual were war captives were sacrificed and eaten. By Julius Caesars time folks no longer ate the victim, but the religious sacrifice was still a big part of the show for the folks.
The greeks and the romans both had numerous myths that dealt with human sacrifice and canibalism. They emerged out of that state, which appears to be the default state of all tribal, illiterate social organisation. There are indeed areas of the world today where tribal behaviour is fairly well understood to include shamans who make "deals" with spirits. The bigger the favour you want, the bigger the sacrifice demanded. I think that has always gone on, and will always go on, in any illiterate tribal society of human beings. Civilization and things like laws evolve out of that superstitious nonsense.
I find it strange to think that ancient Rome, with all its grand engineering and its complex laws, was largely governed by superstition. Soothsayers and oracles were a big deal. The spirit world was big money, and big politics.
@@tobystewart4403 look at how religious influence so many parts of the world today.
I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt.
IIrc, after the battle of Cannae, Rome buried two Greeks and two Gauls in the forum. Human sacrifice as a result of military stress is not limited to the Carthaginians.
While all modern civilized people pretend to find the notion of human sacrifice abhorrent, (at least in principle, although we still practice it), The sacrifice of enemy prisoners captured in battle is about as far from sacrificing one's own children as you can get on that scale, especially if those children are burned alive.
And it was common for Roman and Greek families to expose unwanted (i.e. mostly female) newborns to the elements for them to die. I guess this makes the Romans look "clean" because they didn't kill their own children but rather let "nature" take care of that particular "issue".
@@MCArt25
Like abortion today in inner-city America, sans exposure. All we need nowadays is a suction tube and some tweezers. 👶
Their magic book of prophesy told them to. Usually it was their theological limit, the exception proved the rule.
However both groups had mass infanticide, the Romans just didn't ritualise it.
@@slappy8941 That specific case is not about enemy prisoners captured in battle if i remember correctly. And to be fair, I personally see the sacrifice of the children morally superior: At least they possibly meant something to the people who sacrificed them. Whereas two couples or foreign slaves are basically "worthless" to the Romans.
As Ser Davos put it on Game of Thrones: "If he commands you to burn children, your lord is evil."
YHWH/Jehovah does it in the Bible/Torah.
Youre a fuckin weirdo
@@theangryholmesian4556source? If you mention the binding of issac, the situation in which he’s testing his follower to NOT sacrafice his child, I’m gonna Laugh at you
@@chadgoose7886That god would ask someone to show thier complete submissive obedience by making them believe seriously that they must sacrifice thier child, is still deeply questionable at best, and horrid at worst. (But then again, we don't have an objective moral system currently.)
God doesn't need you to actually sacrifice your child, but he does need you to be willing to if he commands it.
That can be considered some chilling totalitarianism.
If such a someone believes god commanded them to do something, they could end up doing anything, no matter how heinous.
Intent sometimes matters.
If you are to laugh at that, I will question your reasoning abilities.
@@chillinchum LOL knew it. You all have such dumb elementary baby attacks on Christianity, I could come up with way better arguments agaisnt it then you guys can. “Why do bad thing happen if god good” is usually the go to, even though it’s explained in literally the first chapter of the first book of the Bible
Another great and interesting video, love your in-depth and academic approach
I don't know that there's a _right_ time for an ad to intrude itself in a video on this subject, or a right ad to do the intruding, but I feel like "just as we're getting into the discovery of the tophet" and "CLIF bars" have to be the wrong ones.
RUclips ads are like annoying flies that can't take a hint
I’m disgusted. I love this comment lmao
Amazing work as always!
Tremendously fascinating video!
Thank you, brother.
I had watched a doc about the _tophet_ near the harbor in what was Carthage. I thought it was hard to believe anyone could doubt that they were making sacrifices of infants.
But that was before I understood that there even was a scarcity of archeological sites and remains for the Carthaginians. Thank you for giving examples of how true that is, as well as excellent sources all around! 🙏
First off what he doesn't know is that many diseases that would kill infants would leave no trace. Look up cot death. Basically there's no real proof of sacrifices.
Second is that Romans sacrificed humans, even children, and so did the Greeks and even the Hebrews....or Canaanites (calling them Hebrews at this point might be rushing things). Read the Bible.
The narrative regarding the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter (Book of Judges, chapters 11-12) is probably a biblical reflection of these traditions of child sacrifice.
huh cool molach baal, molag baal. never caught that connection in the elder scrolls
Elder Scrolls lore is heavily influenced by real life philosophy, often middle eastern/indian/African stuff for the races like the Khajiit and Dunmer. The khajiits are from a warm sunny sandy land, and worship the moon for example. Islam's primary symbol is the moon, and Islam is of course is the most prominent religion in the sandy warm sunny middle east. The concept of Chim is heabily based on eastern philosophy too. The dunmer practice ancestor worship, which many african tribes still do.
Translate the term "Elder Scroll" into Hebrew... Heh!
@@gryaznygreeb Everything Kirkbride writes is genius stolen straight from the Godhead.
Also Muslims adore cats, so you've got that going for the Khajit comparison
Notably the Chinese traditionally practiced ancestor worship, as did the indo-aryans.
Its Malik Bel which just means "King Lord" or Malakbel which means "messenger/angel of the Lord" (not to be confused with the Biblical "Angel of the Lord" where the "lord" part is a euphemism for the Tetragramatron or the Greek word Kyriou) but Baal/Bhaal/Bael/Bol is like the most common fantasy demon/evil god name and just comes straight from the Bible.
I thought that there was a Carthaginian site found on Sicily that also had a "tophet" that confirmed the same things as those in Carthage itself.
Nothing confirms child sacrifice.
You sound a lot like the guy from the Dates and Dead Guys channel. Great video!
The video we have all been waiting for. There is so much propaganda to and fro, and much apology for the Carthaginian practices by the second group of academics you mentioned - I feel like who are likely representative of ‘critical’ revisionism.
In my mind the evidence vindicates both the Romans as well as the Hebrews, who noted this practice among Canaanites, the ancestors of the Phoenicians and hence the Carthaginians.
All Bronze Age civilizations committed human sacrifice, including the Chinese. The collapsed civilizations were replaced by people who valued human life. We are descended from those people.
Many of us are inclined to heroise The Carthaginians as the enemies of Roman Imperialism, which is notable for extreme violence.
So the evidence of infant sacrifice is disturbing.
I suppose it's unwise to identify with anyone in antiquity.
@@alanpennie8013 This is a profoundly mistaken viewpoint. The Carthaginians were imperialists and conquerors, as were every successful people in antiquity.
@@qboxer It's funny cuz they owned the other half of what eventually became the western portion of the Roman Empire, had Rome been smashed the Carthaginians would have dominion over the West and I'd be typing in Phoenician characters lol
@@MrWolfstar8neither the Classical Greeks nor the Romans of the Republic "valued human life". Greeks and Romans killed newborn children on a regular basis, and the Romans developed an entire cultural tradition out of feeding defenseless people to wild animals.
Both cultures also practiced human sacrifice in times of great social distress.
The son of someone i take care of is a witness and obsessed with demonizing carthage
Based 🤘
I'm a Tunisian Jew and I'm just glad to be included with yiddish jews when it comes to child sacrifice
Thank-you for the very detailed discussion of the available textual sources relating to Carthage. I am not _especially_ interested in this period of history (or the topic of child sacrifice), but I am very interested in the research process and particularly how historians reach conclusions (across all time periods and geographic localities) where written records are limited or non-existent.
for a second i thought that nursery rhyme "little miss muffet" had gained insanely dark implications because i assumed a "tuffet" was like a hillock not a place for burning children to death. then i poked around and found out youre referring to a "tophet" a horrible thing there shouldnt be a word for.
Bro, there's an apostrophe in "you're", because it's a contraction.
@@slappy8941 youre right
The Romans would bury Celtic teenagers (1 male, 1 female) when they were in especially dire straits. I posit that, if 1 group from the same general area, and the same general time, which was in contact with the group in question was willing to perform human sacrifice, than, more than likely, others were.
I remember seeing a TV Show on the History Channel maybe a decade ago that looked at this phenomenon, and they mentioned that there was an indication on the teeth of the skeletons-I can't remember the specific name of the thing now-which suggested the children were stillborn.
I figured it was open-shut from then on, that the Carthaginians probably never sacrificed children and just cremated them, and that Romans played the demon card on their enemy in the propaganda machine. But it's interesting to hear that, as per usual, the truth is more complicated.
Human sacrifice to Demons is a plague every Bronze Age civilization including the Chinese suffered from. The sorts of things that were common in pre-conquest Mexico was the normal for all early civilizations. It took a very strong reaction and the demographic collapse of those civilizations to end it.
What we have is a combination of material evidence from Carthage and literary evidence from The Hebrew Bible from which it is possible to construct an account of infant sacrifice in antiquity which is plausible if somewhat tentative.
Which one is the ‘demon card’?
@BuddyLee23 A 4/4 demon with Flying and Trample that says "At the beginning of your end step, you may put an Enmity counter on any Punic creature an opponent controls." And "Whenever an army you control attacks, if the defending player controls a creature with an enmity counter on it, deal damage to that creature equal to the power of all armies you control."
But to be serious, I'm just saying that Romans demonized Carthaginians. It's a turn of phrase.
@@Cavouku hahaha well played with the MTG ref. Takes me right back to middle school. Now I am left wanting a real life version where the colors are changed to civilizations…anyway, good show sir.
Last time I was this early Carthage wasn’t salted yet
Certainly brings more flavor to the meat
@@Ratnoseterry
Baby meat?
Never was…
I've always wondered if they "sacrificed" the children that died, so many babies (and young children)did. Something along the lines of "too good to live". Human sacrifice and/or cannibalism are traditionally what people throughout history have claimed about others to make it ok to hate them.
Hmmm... You do seem to have a point. Even amongst Hindus, corpses of infants are buried, instead of being cremated.
So here's a more modernist interpretation, based on speculation in regards to the mass suicide/murder of Jonestown in the 70s. Jim Jones makes the case that it needs to be done to protect the children, but it carries the darker motive of committing his people to the act as their children were now gone. Perhaps part of the motive in child sacrifice here is to commit the civilization to a course of action, with fewer individual considerations going into it or standing against it.
Just food for thought
Pretty sure the set academic flow in these topics is questioning sources, accusing them of bias, saying the claims are exaggerated, saying it was indeed made-up, followed hotly by the discovery of archaeological evidence vindicating the original accounts.
Human sacrifice to the gods requires fresh blood to be shed. This requires a live fresh person or animal. The gods require blood as a form of atonement or as appeasement or a vehicle from which you could ask for a favour from the gods. In animal sacrifice, it should be unblemished. This relates to babies as the most innocent, therefore unblemished as the best way to gain favour from the gods and it was more likely you would get what you wanted. It was not a rare practice in many cultures. To offer a dead body or a deformed child was considered an affront by not offering the best. You and your family would be cursed and shunned by the community. Moloch god of fire required daily offerings of babies. I read that the firstborn of each couple was sacrificed. How a mother could be brainwashed to see her infant put onto the hot iron arms and the scream of her infant as the flesh sizzled, and the flames blackened and twisted the body - is something I cannot wrap my head around. A child was often killed when a bridge, building or defensive walls were consecrated to the god of the city. Not only in the Middle East and Mediterranean but in European cultures. We can not hide that dark aspect of us anymore than to deny we humans viewed each other as a food source in famine times and some chose to eat human flesh as regular food source despite being surrounded by animal and plants they could source. What is the explanation for that little nugget of grossness?
What's the Punic translation of "W.C Fields"?
Regarding "lord of the furnaces" vs "altar" at 13:34, iirc most animal sacrifices are burned in some fashion or another (at least that's what you'd always see in Greek works, not sure for Canaanite/proto-Jewish ones). I don't know what the root word for sacrifice is. but it could be that since both of those are innately tied together anyways (a sacrifice fire at an altar) that it's broadly meant as "lord of sacrifice", or perhaps great sacrifice, if they really did use children some of the time
Baal Hammon probably means 'Lord Amun', plenty of Canaanite gods were worshipped in Egypt and vice versa or is connected to a mountain called Hamon in Ugaritic, possibly the same as the Amanus mountains in Greek (now Nur Daglari in modern Turkey). Amun is closely associated with Rams especially in his Greek Form Zeus-Ammon (popular with Alexander the Great who was also depicted with Ram's horns after posthumous deification) and the name Ba'al Qarnaim (Lord of the Two Horns) is also used at Carthage.
Jews use puns in religious contexts all the time so their Carthaginian linguistic cousins probably did as well.
Of course a mountain could be called a furnace as there's volcano imagery in Canaanite sacred poetry (which the Hebrew Bible technically counts as under some definitions). The Romans called Baal Hammon 'Saturnus' rather than 'Vulcan' so if that connection existed the Romans didn't notice or care much.
As I recall, an increased number of human sacrifices were found on Crete right about the time the place was conquered by Mycenaean Greeks, or perhaps the "Sea peoples". They were also found up in mountain caves, indicating people fled civic centres.
It would be extremely ironic if the Romans themselves were responsible for the child sacrifice they abhorred Carthaginians for.
Child sacrifice is mentioned often on Greek islands, often related to the Cult of Dionysos. The refrain from human sacrifice in the ancient 'West' seems largely one of propaganda/self delusion.
Are you indicating that the Romans are related to the Sea Peoples, or that their ‘driving the Carthaginians to ruin’ was the reason for human sacrifice?
The Romans actually did participate in human sacrifices, inclusive of children. That was the whole point of their TRIUMPHS
@@qboxer
Deepest lore
@@qboxer I'm drawing a parallel between the two. The video itself implies that the stress of the Punic Wars increased the sacrifices, and I'm agreeing with that statement.
In the German Bay around the North Sea, constructional child sacrifice was practiced well into early modern times. There is the novel "Pale Horse Rider" by Theodor Storm about this subject. Archeologists also found remains of individual children (not groups) under old raised foundations. The people there believed in some apotropaeic magic to protect their living space from the floods of the Sea by giving these sacrifices. They sacrificed what was most dear to them in hope of retribution from the elements. Since the Phoenicians were also a seafaring culture, maybe there is something in the water that makes people become like that.
In terms of degeneracy, child sacrifice is still practiced. Like some people wanting to enjoy themselves and when they get pregnant they get an abortion like it's nothing. You could say the modern civilization sacrifices a lot of children to the God of poor life choices.
I think it was in Tyre where they found a large number of child skeletons in the ancient harbor, indicating either sacrifice or postnatal abortion. Terrible things like these also still happen, for example the case of Tuam, Galway County, Ireland, where Catholic nuns did something alike.
Not trying to white wash or excuse any of this. Just writing this comment because people (usually Christians) point the finger at Pagans for these stories of child sacrifice, acting as if their religion ended it all. Jesus himself is a human sacrifice, even symbolically cannibalized. It's weird. Also writing it for racist Neopagans who will accept that Phoenicians did this but close their eyes that stuff like this also happened in Europe. But I don't think all religions ever were like that. In antiquity only some wayward nations practiced child sacrifice. Even people as bloodthirsty as the Aztecs sacrificed captured enemy soldiers and criminals from their own society, but not the innocent.
Child sacrifice is very common in the modern world.
Blood Libel
I read an article about the discovery of mummified children remains in pre-columbian chile by a native group. The burial sight had the indications that the children were linely sacrificed.
They were able to date all the mummified children to just 2 dates. Both of which corrosponded with sever protracted droughts.
It seems, to whatever extent child sacrifice was ever pracriced by ancient peoples, it seems to have only occurred during times of extreme events, where a quick dearh via sacrificial practices may have been seen as merciful to the children; where the alternative would be a protracted painful death by starvation.
Have you read Frazer's Golden Bough, and do you find it to have been solid scholarship (Frazer's thesis is that many or all civilizations had passed through a phase of human sacrifice, which in the case of Rome may have been much more recent than the Romans cared to admit)?
In the name of Faith - you can do anything like Aztec do
Thats fucking crazy.
All I can think of is the narrator from the Carthaginian Campaign in the Original Rome: Total War
Awesome video as always. Thanks.😊
It's been argued convincingly by many modern scholars that most Canaanite peoples (including Phoenicians) shared a tradition of the sacrifice of the firstborn. All the firstborn of animals and men were the portion of the gods, and must be sacrificed as such. The Bible records this in garbled form in the examples of Abraham and Isaac, the story of the Passover, and the god Moloch. The last one is the one we have the best archaeological evidence for, as excavations have shown textual evidence that "Moloch" was not the name of a god at all but the term for the special sacrifice of a human firstborn or its substitution with the firstborn of an animal.
The Tophet actually presents a challenge to this idea because not all the bones found there were of children, and not all children's bones were of infants. However, there is a very dark interpretation for this evidence. Basically, when you think about it, parents would always be loathe to sacrifice their own children, but even more so their ONLY child. So it is possible that some parents who practiced firstborn sacrifice might have waited until they had a second child to fulfill their religious obligation.
Just shared with my daughter.
Tanit and Baal Hammon are probably not seperate deities but different aspects of a divine androgyne as is common in Semitic religion (Genesis 1:27). Baal was the standard form of address between a wife and her husband and Tanit's primary ephitet is 'pene baal' meaning 'the face of her husband' and the Arabic term 'wajh' (face) refers symbolically to the general presence of god and Sar ha-Panim (prince of the face) is a title of the Jewish Chief Angel Yahoel/Metatron.
Tanit/Tinnit (Juno/Dea Caelestis after Roman Conquest) was the primary deity of Carthage and recieved most of the actual worship as part of a general trend where the Chief god became overly exalted and distant so was replaced by a subordinate god in the last phase of Semitic religion before Islamic monotheism took over. Other examples being Nabu taking over from Marduk/Belus in Babylon, probably the Archangel Michael in Post-Exile Judea, Isis replacing Amun-Ra (Egyptian isn't a semitic language but its closely tied to its semitic neighbours) and arguably Mary and Jesus in Christianity.
I think the Classic Romans are so cute in how they compare themselves to others. They’re like “AND GET THIS: THEY SACRIFICE HUMANS” and Agrippina or whoever clasps her broach muttering “heavens deary!” meanwhile Gallic chief #108 is being executed in front of Jupiter, Patron God Father of The Roman People.
Then the Druid spits at the pontiffs that he bows to no king and the crowd laughs because Augustus isn’t a king he’s just the _Princeps senatus_ or as the civilized would say _”Primus inter pares.”_ literally “first among equals” and this dense barbarian is clearly blind because a king would wear obviously wear a golden diadem and not just purple robes (it’s a fashion choice).
it's almost as if self-righteous hypocrisy was just as much in style back then as it is today
“In front of…” as in an execution by a people that happened to revere Jupiter, or an outright sacrifice to him? Do specify; as I’d like to know if the same semantics can be applied to the Aztecs and their 85,000 sacrifices in less than a week made to Huitzilopochtli as being something done merely “in front” of him, as opposed to “for him”.
@@sergpiewhat are the logistics that made it possible to execute 85k in less than 7 days exactly?
First,Carthage culture is a subsection of larger pagan Caanenite culture(also when we say Caanenite=Hebrew language so Carthaginian spoke dialect of Hebrew Qart Khadasht/Qirya Kadasha,also there is evidence of Jewish migrations into Carthaginian areas in Gerba since the first temple destruction/beginning of Carthage,also why there was big Jewish cummunity in Spain/North Africa and not Greece/Balkans).Now about the idea of sacrificing of loved ones,this was probably done as drastic measure to show extreme loyalty to God,therefore this wasn't a common thing(seen in Isaac binding as a show of total loyalty btw The Jewish religion main contention was that God himself REJECTED those type sacrifices in his words and Jewish oral traditions goes to big point to discourage from this because of this event),also the words themselves here are not unique and have generic everday meanings aswell Tofet-something huge that is monumental,horrific/Terrifying/Awe inspiring.Later Passages connected with valley(Ge)of henom/Gehenom/Hell(place filled with fire)
Molech-Ruler over/owner over(Melech is King so what king does over his land this is probably a description),very very similar to Baal(they were probably synonymous)which means also mean owner over,but here we know this also describing a God.About this issue of old world sacrifice to Baal,Knoel one of greatest proffesor of our day for the TaNaKH,say you can see an example the religious ritual of human sacrifice in the TaNaKH(sadly),in the story of "sons of Aaron"(Jewish priest sons)where they talk about being "engulfed with fire"/sacrificed themselves "facing God" in "fire of God",this idea is similar to Caanenites ideas that there was big statue of Baal(with his face looking over town/people in a elevated area)with eternal fire burning,you would put oil on victim(to purify him same as done with Jewish kings)bind him in front of the statue,drain the blood and offer the service while God fire engulfed with hugh fire erupting from the oil.
The Romans also claimed that Druids were sacrificing ppl as a pretext to wipe them out.
It is hard for me to believe these type of claims especially when we dont really have the Carthagians perspective.
I’ve been to the tophet on the isle of Motia.
@13:18 Haman perhaps meaning 'Master of the furnaces'
Compare, "For YHVH your god is a consuming fire" Deut 4:24, and "Understand today that YHVH your god who goes before you is a devouring fire" Deut 9:3
Readers of the Bible ought notice something about first born males. Exodus 13: 1 has every first offspring, human specifically included, to be sanctified as belonging to their God.
Exodus 13:11 changes this to "when YHVH brings you into the land of the Canaanites... ...then you must give over" the first offspring. And Ex 13:13 has "Every firstborn human among your sons you must redeem". Leviticus 27:29 states quite differently, " "Any human being who is [kherem] must not be ransomed, such a person must be put to death". The adjective referring to the dedication of things to destruction. Just like burning of offerings and war plunder are.
Numbers 3:11 Has this crucial update, "Look, I myself have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in the place of every firstborn who opens the womb among the Israelites. So the Levites belong to me, because all the firstborn are mine".
Numbers18:8-18 retcons this drastically, where things that are required to be dedicated but not burned, belong to the Levites. Specifically, unclean animals [human corpses are decidedly unclean] and humans are not to be burnt, but rather to be ransomed and belong to Levites; [clean animals] sheep, bovines, goats--the visceral fat is to be burnt and the blood used on the altar, the meat then belongs to the Levites. Note here the conformity to Hesiod's tale of Prometheus and Zeus at Mekone.
My point is, there is ample reference to "dedication to the flames" of firstborn children in the Torah, although all the details are dodgy. Sometimes it's only the males.
The Torah is an attempt to Plato-nize the Phoenician culture and religion in the Levant, while not alienating the population, through demonization of Canaan and Philistia. Hellenistic appreciation of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultural practices and traditions are emphasized instead.
The Bible Old Testament is a collection of texts with the intent of political unification. Mostly, ideas that the Greeks liked were promulgated. But it really waffles back and forth. Separating the "Nation" of Israel from Phoenicians is the main goal. There most likely never was such a unified whole other than in the story.
The practice of falsely accusing ones enemies of human sacrifice/child sacrifice as a means of justifying war against them is a practice that has carried upto even today as the false accusation of baby killing is being used to justify a genocide right now.
We know that the accusation of human sacrifice was a common tactic used by Rone to justify it's wars of conquest, as they used this against the Gauls and not just the Cartheginians.
Military tides or priesthood bureaucracy.
D E L E N D A E S T
Where is the Library of Carthage ?..
Given to Numidians as spoils.
And subsequently lost.
@@SuperCulverin NOOOO ! :(
Destroyed by the Romans, except for the advanced agricultural knowledge, which they took home.
@@jameshewitt5774
The Romans already had that. What do you think they lived off of in the italic peninsula; Slim Jim’s and caramel macchiatos?
@@sergpie No, I said ADVANCED agricultural knowledge. Roman farm production increased significantly after stealing this advanced technology. The rest of the data was burned to erase Punic culture.
Has the MLK statuette survived to the present?
I honestly don’t understand the motives of the revisionists. We have the literary sources and several archeological sites, not just in Carthage but in several carthaginian settlements in Sicily and Sardinia. It was a widespread practice. The Romans hated many enemies, but never said that they did child sacrifices. If they said that of the carthaginians there must be a valid reason.
Its just a worthy topic to question it doesn't need some serious motivation behind it. Similar revisionism has proved very important with Cult Prostitution allegations but those are more convincing because most of the Cult Prostitution claims are from the 19th century and require very forced interpretation of the classical sources (except for Herodotus but even that account refers to a coming of age rite and has to be misinterpreted to produce the priestesses engaged in sacred sex assumed in the 19th century) while child sacrifice is matter of factly stated.
The Romans did accuse other peoples of human sacrifice like the whole Wickerman thing in Caesar's account of Gaul but the child part is more limited.
There's no revisionism. Maybe on your part The literary sources are from the Romans, the enemy so they don't matter that much. Several archaeological sites? Which ones? You don't. Besides, the infants in Carthage might as well have died from disease. Most diseases will not leave traces on bones. Talk to a pediatrist. Look up Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The Romans did child sacrifice. That's why they said it. The Romans also lied A LOT about their enemies.
Most modern historians are Marxists. They're very anti west and try to paint non-western civilizations are morally superior to that of the west. Hence they're ideologically driven to try and portray these civilizations in the best possible light
they accused EVERYONE of Human sacrifice what the fuck are you on about lmao
There's no clear evidence of human sacrifice.
The Romans practiced human sacrifice themselves.
This is Baaler content
"I'm sorry but the sacrifices will stop."
Yeah I don't know how to tell you this buddy but the Greeks and Romans also practice human sacrifice. So did the Spanish via the Inquisition/Auto da Fe
@@theangryholmesian4556The inquisition didn't target children.
@@aaronmoore3050 Also even if that were true...which it isn't...doesn't make it better.
@@theangryholmesian4556 It certainly does.
@@aaronmoore3050 I think killing people is bad in general. You on the other hand seem to think it was okay in some circumstances. Sad.
Sorry, but the children sacrifices will stop.
-Scipio Aemilianus
Revisionist will do everything in their power to deny the simple fact that yes, they did child sacrifice in the name od Moloch. 😂
I'm not even sure why, we have the material evidence, limited though it is, we have the literary evidence, biased though it is, and we have comparable religious behavior in other Phoenician controlled polities; we obviously can't know the extent without evidence, which we'll probably never find, so why tism out over defending Carthage's honor to modern sensibilities? They did it, it needn't be judged, they weren't alone in their barbarity, but the only reason to contextualize seems to be to put them on equal moral footing with the Romans, either from ideological compulsion or something else I cannot identify.
The concept was probably a bit too familiar for their liking.
Evil pagan ritual still In practice today, the practitioners call it something else in 2024.
I think it’s largely due to academia’s unwillingness to assert theory without substantial proof + how horrific the allegation is. If it were a trial, you’d want to be sure before you condemned an entire culture as pedicidal.
Maybe the Romans were right to salt Carthage...
They crucified people and also practiced human sacrifice. There's no moral high ground here. Also genocide is bad and last I checked kills a lot of children.
@@theangryholmesian4556the Romans didn’t sacrifice their children to demons.
@@MrWolfstar8well, then it's ok... ^_^
@@MrWolfstar8 I'll get the salt and the crosses, this is gonna be a long day
@@MrWolfstar8 sacrificing adults = ok
sacrificing babies = bad
nice non-logic
Mlk means king in semitic. Gnosticism copied it as archon (king in greek).
Archon means ruler (same route as anarchy = without rulers). The Athenian Democracy had 10 Archons (chief magistrates) of which the Archon Basileus ("Ruling King") was the ceremonial King and Chief religious figure. Gnosticism uses it due to it being an Astrological term (though crator was more common in Greek Astrology). Most gnostics probably didn't read any semitic languages and its hard to find any knowledge of the Hebrew bible beyond the first few chapters of Genesis in Gnostic texts.
The Marseille Tariff, a schedule of shares or payments related to Carthaginian sacrifices, mentions cattle, sheep, goats, and poultry, but no human sacrifices of any age. After about 600 BC, the normal practice for the Carthaginians was burial of the dead with the exception of infants or the stillborn, who were cremated, and that practice might have been distorted or exaggerated in later sources. A definitive answer will probably elude us forever, given the paucity and bias of the available sources, and the ambiguity of the archeological finds.
Makes sense.
Carthago delende est!
Ba'al worshipers.
Ba'ased worshipers
🩸🩸🩸
The Romans admit they did human sacrifice during times of great distress too
And celebration, and conquest, and boredom. They abhorred human sacrifice but found every possible excuse to ritually take life
Cartha delenda EST
I’m gonna be mad if he repeats the “it’s Roman propganda!!!!” Meme
I mean it is, but propaganda can still be based on a kernel of truth.
Given most were stillbirths and miscarriages being offered and Romans seeing it. You would believe they would say.
They are sacrificing babies
Taking into account the Romans' tendency for hyperbole and hypocrisy, I believe it is reasonable to assert that although the Carthaginians did sacrifice children (we have evidence of this), the level of depravity represented by the Latins was far worse.
If they performed child sacrifice it was likely not something they were proud of. It makes sense that it would be something only their enemies would bring up.
Very cool and normal comment section we have here
14:56 I remember Romans having human sacrifice practices. During Carthage- Roman war when Hannibal showed up at Rome some important people killed their grown up sons for protection of city walls or something.
Not true.
First!!!
Thanks. "Nullus in verba."
About the children "not appearing like they died of a disease", if you ask a pediatrist they will tell you that many if not most diseases that killed infants wouldn't leave a mark if you've burned the body. There's also sudden infant death syndrome that definitely doesn't leave a mark.
Another issue though is that Romans practiced human sacrifice and even child sacrifice and so did the Greeks...and the Hebrews. You can find in the Old Testament passages that tell you to sacrifice your first born. Of course....that sacrifice might have not meant what you think often (the temples had slaves for their herds or flocks or lands and many of them were these sacrifices).
Cultures like Carthage might be doing euthanasia of the already dying, as others said ancient child mortality was already so so common. Could be a lot of 'sacrifices' were a form of funeral
Considering the Hypocrisy of the Romans along with their habit of excess exaggeration I think it is safe to say while the Carthaginians did sacrifice Children (we have proof to this fact) it is nowhere near to the extent or depravity the Latins described.
It was probably very much what they said. What's ironic is the Romans threw babies off the tarpeian Rock because they were defective or a girl child.
@@johnsoutherland3403
There is literally no evidence of this. The Rupes Tarpeia was used for triumphs (passing by it reminded military personnel of the consequences of betraying the state) and the execution of criminals and treasonous individuals that acted against Rome. 🙄
I think the allegations are highly likely especially in view of the fact that the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans all report it in their writings. It probably only took place at extreme times like during the revolt of the mercenaries between the Punic Wars when Carthage was on its knees
. The same controversy involves the Druids and celtic religious practices -Julius Caesar famously describing how they burnt victims in wicker cages with the usual type of "Woke" historian whitewashing the Druids and alleging Roman propaganda. The same type of historian always argues like this painting Westerners in the worst possible light and romanticizing "first" cultures as the usual victims who hither to had lived idyllic lives.Probably nothing could be further from the truth with Aztec ,Maya and Inca cultures and similar in North America being far from pleasant in any way!
Buddy pointing out that historical revisionism is a Thing is not a new or "woke" phenomenon. Please define woke and tell me where the word originated from. Go on. I'll wait.
Also the vast majority of historians know the reality of human sacrifice Pre Columbian Mesomerica. Still doesn't justify genocide or colonization. Ta. Nor is there evidence for so called wicker men. Maybe quit howling about woke and read a book.
@@theangryholmesian4556 It has African American origins - part of Afro- American parlance and it means something like becoming aware of certain things -waking up to them -being cognizant or aware. I heard it explained once but have forgotten the precise explanation but now it has a wider meaning.
Worth noting that the Romans and Greeks themselves not only practiced human sacrifice, but had a longstanding practice of killing off unwanted newborn children by exposing them to the elements, and the Romans made a huge public spectacle out of what was essentially a series of human sacrifices to honor living or dead individuals (the arena games). Even the allegedly "civilized" societies of antiquity were often shockingly cruel towards their fellow human beings.
Was the definition OK with you? -and it was straight out of my head without going to Wiki or anything.
Greeks also did child sacrifice. It was wrapped in religion but in essence it had eugenic purpose.
Western countries also have child sacrifice. We do it before birth.
give the sources and not writing non sense
The Controversial Main reason; on why the Carthaginian Human Sacrifice question, is heatly debated ((and is subsequently and fervorously denied with severe pushback by many at that)) as it was/is/will continue to be so. (Is not because of the Authenticity/lack thereof of the evidence of the Carthaginians doing ((or not doing)) so. Nor really even Rome's historical bias against them to a degree) It is primarily because of its close ties to the Talmud (and subsequently Judaism)
Also Very Good video, THC.
What Brew is out there repping Baal Lord of Storms or Moloch? Unless this is some esoteric "it's really Moloch, all Judaism is really crypto-canaanite pagan barbarity enduring through the ages", in which case you're gonna have to provide a mountain of evidence or be corralled into less than savory corners of the web.
What do you think an abortion is, child sacrifice
No. Because zygotes fetuses and embryos aren't children let alone babies or toddlers. Nor is it a religious observance. So wrong on both counts! Please keep your misogynistic mitts of our body and healthcare!
It's sacrifice to appease the monthly income the most powerful gods
Zygote lives matter!
@@theangryholmesian4556
Should a child (all children begun as zygotes, and fetus is technically the term for a baby in Latin, within or without the womb) be terminated for the sins or promiscuity of either parent?
Choose carefully, as one may resonate thoroughly with ✡️
In case you wanted proper antisemitism, which is really just a term for people calling spades, spades
In a sense entirely. Though for now it is usually not a ritualised religious practice. But much more like the mass infanticide that defined many pagan cultures until the advent of Christian moral scruples, and power.
Cool it with the antisemitism
Never
@@RegioVlogsMty agreed
I guess carthaginians technically are Semitic.
@@vorynrosethorn903 not technically. They were Phoenicians
@@RegioVlogsMty And Phoenicians were a semitic people, just like Hebrews.
The U.S. has sacrificed ~65,000,000 unborn babies on the altar of convenience. Carthage sacrificed countless children on the altar of their god. The irreverence for human life in all its stages of development was the same in our culture as it was in Carthaginian culture so how are we here in the U.S. so different in our values from ancient western pagan societies?
Your wright
I'm sorry there is no such thing as an unborn baby. You seem to be confusing zygotes embryos and fetuses with babies and toddlers and women exercising their bodily autonomy to a safe and necessary medical practice with religious barbarity. Incidentally women and girls die because of your religious barbarity every day. Please stay far away from women and girls sir and keep your hands off our healthcare!
@@PeterGroner*You're right. And no you're not. Your knowledge of science, healthcare, and bodily autonomy is as appalling as your grammar. Misogynist can't spell. What a shock.
The average man sacrifizes billions of "unborn babies" a year for pleasure😂
The ritual sacrifice of children is an intrinsic part of mercantile cultures. Carthage, as a merchant empire, was distinguished from contemporary Greeks and Romans by this. In martial empires by contrast, self sacrifice is valorized, and adult men seek out opportunities to "die for" something. Merchant empires, by contrast, symbolically sacrifice their future in order to achieve comfort and luxury in the present.
The victors wrote the history so🤔 the Romans could've done the dirty deed and blamed their enemies 😮
American pre-Columbian civilizations also offered human sacrifices.For the sake of political correctness, everything outside of European civilization is presented as heaven on earth
as someone who actually actively studies history and is friends with history professors this is so far from the truth, the insinuation you are making I mean, Yes of course the Pre-columbian cultures DID do human sacrifice. It is the European traditions of human sacrifice that have been blotted out of the telling of history. For example people regularly say that the Romans didnt do Human Sacrifice which is only a semantic argument because they absolutely DID do human sacrifice in every single triumph in fact.
@@katmannsson can you explain to us what pre-Columbian civilizations did with captives? did they fight each other? did they destroy each other? And no, the Romans did not perform mass human sacrifice to their gods.they were no more cruel than any other civilization at that time and unfortunately not even afterwards
The Ancients called it Child Sacrifice.
Today, we just call it Abortion. Same thing, different god, different time. Same thing, but on a scale never seen before.
While you may think of abortion as you like, equating both is just a very long stretch. I mean, neither the Greeks nor the Romans had any problem with infanticide, they just threw unwanted children into the nearest ditch to die from exhaustion. It was the ritual component that threw them of. If anything, that is by far closer to abortion than child sacrifice. And I actually doubt the scale argument - with few exceptions, almost all ancient cultures are totally cool with infanticide. Some practised it until the 20th century (cf. the practice of Mabiki in Japan). Family planning is just something people do and did since they before they climbed of the trees...