Posted on 12/12/2007 11:10:15 AM PST by blam
Spartans did not throw deformed babies away: researchers
Mon Dec 10, 1:22 PM ET
AFP/File Photo: The statue of King Leonidas of ancient Sparta stands over the battlefield of Thermopylae, some...
ATHENS (AFP) - The Greek myth that ancient Spartans threw their stunted and sickly newborns off a cliff was not corroborated by archaeological digs in the area, researchers said Monday.
After more than five years of analysis of human remains culled from the pit, also called an apothetes, researchers found only the remains of adolescents and adults between the ages of 18 and 35, Athens Faculty of Medicine Anthropologist Theodoros Pitsios said.
"There were still bones in the area, but none from newborns, according to the samples we took from the bottom of the pit" of the foothills of Mount Taygete near present-day Sparta.
"It is probably a myth, the ancient sources of this so-called practice were rare, late and imprecise," he added.
Meant to attest to the militaristic character of the ancient Spartan people, moralistic historian Plutarch in particular spread the legend during first century AD.
According to Pitsios, the bones studied to date came from the fifth and sixth centuries BC and come from 46 men, confirming the assertion from ancient sources that the Spartans threw prisoners, traitors or criminals into the pit.
The discoveries shine light on an episode during the second war between Sparta and Messene, a fortified city state independent of Sparta, when Spartans defeated the Messenian hero Aristomenes and his 50 warriors, who were all thrown into the pit, he added.
GGG Ping.
Interesting.
I was taught that the babies were left on a hillside. Still, it’s all interesting.
And dragged off by animals. It wouldn’t be a surprise that none of the bones were found. I imagine a hungry wolf would pretty much eat everything when it came to a newborn, probably chew up the bones and all.
I thought this was already known? We were taught in college that the Spartans gave the weakly and the deformed to the Helots to raise.
Aren’t baby bones mostly cartillage? IIRC, the Spartans would decide on its fate immediately after the birth of the baby.
Rumor likely started by early Pro-Abortion democrats.
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
"In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags."
Just tryin' ta be helpful.
Probably easier to fire up the troops to go to battle against "guys who kill their own babies", cuz then you're not just going to war to defend yourself & your people, but you're also going to crush evil people.
Thanks - I’d really been fretting about this...
And not just in Sparta.
You could call the practice “completed birth abortion”.
"Exposure" was a common form of late term abortion (full-birth abortion) for both the Greeks and Romans.
I would imagine the "bones" have been ingested and passed by animals.
No, you must be thinking of a fetus. The embryo starts out with a skeleton of primarily hyaline cartilage, but by the time of birth most of this hyaline cartilage has been converted to bone with the exception of ephiphyseal plates near the end of long bones such as in the limbs. This allows the bone to grow. During adolescence, this too converts to bone, and the bone stops growing.
Just about all ancient peoples practiced infanticide. The only exception I’m aware of is the Jews. This was regularly mentioned by their neighbors as one of their oddest customs.
What was unique in Sparta was that a state committee decided which children would be raised. Everywhere else it was the head of the family.
Today it’s the “mother.” We’ve advanced so far.
I was told they sold them to the circus.
“Exposure” was common & allowed for the “gods” to will whether or not an infant would live. Pitching the infants off of a cliff or sacrificing them in fire was considered to be barbaric, even by societies that practiced their own form of infanticide.
I have read a fair amount of military history of the ancient Greeks. I would say that was not a consideration for going to war in 5th and 4th century BC Greece. And I doubt that it was a consideration when Plutarch wrote his history in first century AD. He probably disapproved of the practice, but there were no wars against the Spartans at that time.
Plutarch did write an essay "On the Malice of Herodotus" in which he critized the 5th century BC Greek historian. This may be the explanation:
According to Plutarch scholar R. H. Barrow, Herodotus’ real failing in Plutarch’s eyes was to advance any criticism at all of those states that saved Greece from Persia. “Plutarch,” he concluded, “is fanatically biased in favor of the Greek cities; they can do no wrong.”Sparta was one of the states that saved Greece from Persia. If you haven't seen the movie "300", I would recommend renting it.
Can we throw worthless, er, uh, I mean all DUmmies into a pit off the coast of San Francisco?
PLEASE!!!
I think people have been aborting and preventing pregnancies since they figured out where babies came from.
That's not what I was talking about. Think more in terms of stuff about the "Huns" & "Nips" in WWII.
If you haven't seen the movie "300", I would recommend renting it.
The reason I went to the movie had to do with knowing the story.
This practice lasted for some time.
ping
Well, you are jumping ahead quite a number of years. I am not convinced that we can project 20th century ideas back into history and claim to understand people who lived 2000 years ago. Understanding doesn't necessarily mean approving, but I have seen too much debunking of history to be fan of that approach.
But I'm still not clear about your meaning. Are you saying that Plutarch was trying to demonize the Spartans for some reason? And if so, for what purpose? There was no war against Sparta at this time.
The reason I went to the movie had to do with knowing the story.
I hope you enjoyed the movie. Of course it was a movie, not a documentary. But I think it probably introduced a lot of people to the importance of the battle of Thermopylae.
Leaders didn't start to dehumanize opponents in the modern era. You'll find plenty of examples of it throughout history. I picked a more recent example, but I can give you older examples. Some of the "barbarians" that sacked Rome were Arians, a "heretical" spin off from Christianity. If the practice of sacking a city, the whole raping & pillaging deal made a member of an armed force into a barbarian, why weren't Romans ever called barbarians?
But I'm still not clear about your meaning. Are you saying that Plutarch was trying to demonize the Spartans for some reason?
No, history writers aren't the creators of the myths about opponents. There's no good way to know how much of "common knowledge" is true years after its become common knowledge.
I hope you enjoyed the movie. Of course it was a movie, not a documentary.
Yes, I did.
But I think it probably introduced a lot of people to the importance of the battle of Thermopylae.
I think it did too. I couldn't believe my son, a history major had never heard about that battle before I asked him to go to that movie with me.
Actually, in ancient Rome the daughters were all called by the feminine variant of the nomen, the clan or gens name. This is the origin of the modern names Julia (Julius clan) and Claudia (Claudius gens).
Individual daughters were often given nicknames based on birth order: Prima, Secundia, Tertia, Major, Minor, etc.
This is the equivalent of me naming my two daughters Big Logan and Little Logan. I don't think that would fly very high with them!
In traditional Roman law the paterfamilias had power of life and death not only over the newborns up to a year old, but of older children, the slaves, his wife and even grown sons and their wives and children.
You could have a 60 year old man who himself had great-grandsons, and his 80 year old Dad still had complete control of his life. (In theory, anyway.)
actually the military used to discharge dishonorable discharge and sexual misconduct at sanfrancisco. That is why many of the homosexuals settlement there. That is where they were dumped and they had noplaces else to go.
Victor David Hansen was the history consultant for that movie.
My own mother, an arranged marriage immigrant bride from Sparta (Sparti)-— mentioned frequently the practice..
She never described the technique - but maintained that under certain circumstances it was still practiced into the 20th century...
Even in her old age — she would VERY carefully examine all the newborns to the family in an almost ghoulish manner..
We would all breath a sigh of relief when she would smile and pass the newborn back to its mother...
I this case — I’ll go with my mother’s account..
They had a history consultant? An enjoyable enough movie but its accuracy was less than stellar. And fair enough. It was trying to be true to the comic it was based on not the histories.
Would smaller boned babies be eaten or otherwise have a reason for not being preserved like full grown bodies?
Μολὼν λαβέ
Most Spartans and more generally Greeks today know that this particular aspect of Spartan life - nonsense promoted by British and German archaeologists based on the agendized Plutarch - was never true. Bravo Dr. Pitsios!
In the case of the Greeks (which is where the word barbarian comes from), any one who didn't speek Greek was a barbarian because when a non-Greek spoke, it sounded like "bar-bar", simply nonsense. The Greeks did their share of pillaging and raping under the conquests of Alexander the Great. But that doesn't make them barbarians by this definition.
As for the Romans, I haven't studied their word for barbarian. I assume it would have to do with the political organization of the opponent. Those invading Germanic (even if Arian Christian) tribes were not a well-organized empire. But the Roman legions did their share of raping and pillaging. Look what they did to Jerusalem in the late first century AD--they leveled it to the ground. There are many other examples of Rome doing this sort of thing. In this context I don't think barbarian refers to the destructive power of an army.
I think it did too. I couldn't believe my son, a history major had never heard about that battle before I asked him to go to that movie with me.
I am not surprised. The teaching of history is much worse in the high schools. I read recently that school children in London were confused about a statue in that city to Lord Nelson. They thought it had something to do with Nelson Mandella. Those children aren't being taught much about their own history.
I didn't know that. But I have read several of his books. He has done some very original research in the methods of Greek warfare. The producers of that movie picked a very capable historian for the job.
I knew the word had something to do with language of outsiders, but had been thinking it had to do with the lack of a writing system. Thanks for the info. Hopefully I'll remember it the next time a topic about it comes up.
All or most armies raped & pillaged, but not all gained a reputation about it. How do you think the word got the connotation that's been passed down to us, if all it meant was those who's language sounds like "nonsense"? Even nonsense is a weighted word, assumes a touch of superiority of those who didn't speak & understand the language that sounded like "bar-bar". Belittle your foes if you don't make them evil, as simple "savages" are easier to defeat than an army you allow to be perceived as your equal.
Beware Greeks bearing gifts = Greeks are not to be trusted or have no honor. It is not known whether or not the wooden horse was real. On the one hand you've got cool smart move, but on the other, to "outsiders" you need to "cheat" to win.
As for the Romans, I haven't studied their word for barbarian. I assume it would have to do with the political organization of the opponent. Those invading Germanic (even if Arian Christian) tribes were not a well-organized empire.
The Vandals didn't need a well-organized empire to sack Rome & gain a reputation that lives to this day in the word vandalism.
But the Roman legions did their share of raping and pillaging. Look what they did to Jerusalem in the late first century AD--they leveled it to the ground. There are many other examples of Rome doing this sort of thing. In this context I don't think barbarian refers to the destructive power of an army.
Those who wrote the history were "civilized" & those who were defeated by them were all "barbarians".
I heard talk by a historian who'd been asked to consult on a movie about Hannibal & at some point during the consultation, he was asked if there was any way to make Hannibal the victor in his battles against Rome.
Essentially, it allowed for a couple who wanted the child to take it and adopt it
One of the best known examples of this was Marcus Tullius Cicero's affection for his daughter, Tullia, known from his letters to her.
At least the infant skull is bone. The professor showed us one in a human skeletal biology class. So tiny. And it made me feel like crying, because some woman had lost that baby once.
I wish I could say I was surprised....
You're right, it did. The story of babies adopted by a she-wolf could have come about after seeing a wolf carry off a baby left to the "will of the gods".
I think the movie is coming out next year. I'll probably have to go see it, to see if they listened to the historian or if they made up some "history" to give it the ending the producer thought would be more interesting.
Cool, thanx!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
