I’ve heard it claimed, I don’t think I believe it. Supposedly it ended amongst the Norse with the advent of Christianity, led to high Jewish population growth in the classical world because they didn’t practice it, and so on. But I’ve never seen any evidence for it at all. The Spartans, for example, are supposed to have thrown deformed children down a big hole. Archaeology shows a distinct lack of child bones down that hole, which seems to have actually been used to dispose of criminals. The Spartans also had at least one deformed king.
So, did it really happen, in the Viking lands, the Roman Empire or Hellas?
Numerous charred child bones have been found on a site in Carthage that is supposed to have been a sacrificial place. However, this is disputed by some historians/archeologists (could have been the remains of stillborns/children dead in infancy who, for some religious reason or another, would have been burnt and burried there, for instance)
And if it was a pit that was open to the elements (and animals), after 2000+ years, I would be very surprised to find any bones, dating from that period. :dubious:
Added too late: if what most historians have said (hillside) is true, then obviously excavation of a pit will not prove anything about Spartan practice of infanticide.
Considering the high level of infant mortality in ancient times, I suspect that they would have been unlikely to be chucking them down pits. Handicapped and sickly children would be less likely to survive that fit healthy ones.
Consider what happens in poor and primitive places today. The general consensus is that the more children you have, the more likely you are to have someone to support you in your old age.
If it is true that jews had a higher survival rate, it may be down to their dietary rules or some other effect related to the religion.
That’s precisely why the Spartans at least supposedly practiced it- why waste time and resources on a baby that was unlikely to survive anyway? Better to concentrate on your healthy children, than try and save a child that was probably never going to be fully healthy.
In their culture, you weren’t really a full citizen if you didn’t fight in the army- so even if your sickly child did survive, they were unlikely to be much of a support to you.
Many cultures didn’t really ‘count’ a baby until it was a few months old, probably due to the high early mortality rate, and lack of alternative birth control, so it often just wasn’t seen as a big deal to dispose of unwanted babies.
I don’t think I’ve ever come across stories of infanticide in Norse culture. All the references I’ve read of human sacrifice involved adults.
Re The Spartans
I agree with the other Dopers. The recommended procedure was staking the infant to a hillside in the wilderness, not throwing them down a pit. OTTOMH the myth of Oedipus has him being left on a hillside, not a pit.
I was under the impression that archeological evidence backed up tales of Moloch worshipers burning babies alive. I was also under the impression that Aztecs were just nuts for sacrificing infants.
This article from National Geographic supports the theory that the Romans in Palestine probably practiced infanticide - at the site of a bathhouse (possibly a brothel) up to 100 infant skeletons were found 74% male.
However, a Roman site in the UK where many infant bones were discovered has been more contentious - claims that the building was a brothel has been disputed due to the lack of a major population centre to support it. Other researchers postulate that the site may have been a religious birthing centre, and the infants were still-born or died soon after birth.
I don’t think the OP is referring to human sacrifice but to infanticide as “family planning”, and exposure of children is well known as a practice in Norse Scandinavia.
