was child sacrifice secretly or openly practiced in the neo-puni civilisation and adapted phoenician religion after 146 bce?
After the fall of Carthage in 146 BCE and the emergence of the Neo-Punic civilization under Roman rule, the question of whether child sacrifice persisted—secretly or openly—in the adapted Phoenician/Punic religion is murky, resting on sparse evidence, scholarly debate, and the shifting cultural landscape of Roman North Africa.
Open Practice Post-146 BCE?
Before Carthage’s destruction, child sacrifice (if it occurred as described by ancient sources like Diodorus Siculus or as suggested by tophet remains) was likely an open, ritualized act tied to the cult of Baal Hammon and Tanit. The tophet at Carthage, with its urns of cremated infant bones (some mixed with animal remains), points to a public, communal practice, possibly peaking in times of crisis—like the reported mass sacrifice during the Third Punic War. After 146 BCE, when Rome annexed the territory and later refounded Carthage as a colony (circa 44 BCE under Julius Caesar), direct evidence of open child sacrifice largely vanishes. Roman law explicitly banned human sacrifice (e.g., the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, 81 BCE), and Rome’s cultural disdain for it—calling it nefandum (unspeakable)—would have pressured any overt continuation. The refounded Carthage was a Roman city, with a grid layout, temples to the Capitoline Triad (Jupiter, Juno, Minerva), and a push toward Romanization. Public tophet-style rituals, if they persisted unchanged, would’ve clashed with this legal and cultural framework.
Archaeological Clues
Excavations at the Carthage tophet show its use declined sharply after 146 BCE. The last major deposits of urns with infant remains predate the city’s fall, and while some Neo-Punic sites (e.g., Hadrumetum, modern Sousse) have yielded infant burials, they lack the scale or ritual consistency of earlier tophets. Scholars like Lawrence Stager argue the tophet tradition waned under Roman oversight, with no clear post-146 BCE evidence of sacrificial fires or dedicatory inscriptions linking to live offerings. Instead, these later burials might reflect natural infant mortality (high in antiquity) or a transformed rite—perhaps dedicating stillborns or deceased children to the gods without killing them. The absence of widespread tophet structures in Neo-Punic cities suggests open sacrifice didn’t persist as a state-sanctioned practice.
Secret Continuation?
Could it have gone underground? It’s plausible but speculative. The Neo-Punic religion adapted, blending with Roman practices—Baal Hammon was equated with Saturn, Tanit with Juno Caelestis—and retained influence, as seen in inscriptions and temple remains into the 2nd–3rd centuries CE. Some argue that rural or lower-class communities, less Romanized, might have clung to old ways covertly. Roman authors like Tertullian (a North African Christian, circa 200 CE) claim in Apologeticus that child sacrifice still occurred "in secret" in his time, accusing pagans of killing infants in hidden rites. However, Tertullian’s polemic against non-Christians makes this suspect—he’s pushing a narrative, not citing evidence. No archaeological finds (e.g., hidden tophets or mass infant graves with sacrificial markers) solidly back this up for the Neo-Punic period. If secret sacrifices happened, they’d have been small-scale, lacking the communal structure of pre-146 BCE Carthage.
Cultural Adaptation
The likelier story is adaptation. Punic religion evolved under Rome’s tolerant-but-watchful eye. Animal substitution (lambs, goats), already present in some tophet urns pre-146 BCE, might have fully replaced human offerings to align with Roman norms while preserving symbolic intent—appeasing gods with a stand-in. Neo-Punic inscriptions from the Roman era focus on vows, offerings, and temple dedications, not sacrifice of children. By the time Augustine of Hippo writes in the 4th–5th centuries CE, Punic paganism is fading under Christianity, with no mention of active child sacrifice, secret or otherwise.
Conclusion
Open child sacrifice probably didn’t survive Rome’s conquest and legal system past 146 BCE—the tophet tradition faded as Carthage Romanized. Secret practice is possible but lacks hard proof; it’s more likely the rite morphed into something acceptable (e.g., animal offerings or symbolic dedications). The Neo-Punic religion kept its gods and identity but shed—or hid—what Rome wouldn’t stomach. What’s your hunch—do you think Tertullian’s claims might hold some truth, or was it all propaganda?
Bernd
Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:50:35 GMT
No. 25493962
< can autodafes be a continuition of phoenician human sacrifice?
The suggestion that auto-da-fés—public executions by burning, most famously associated with the Spanish Inquisition—could be a continuation of Phoenician human sacrifice is a fascinating hypothesis, but it doesn’t hold up under historical or cultural scrutiny as a direct lineage. While both involve death by fire and a public, ritualistic element, their contexts, purposes, and development are distinct. Let’s explore the comparison and why it’s more likely a case of superficial similarity than continuity.
Phoenician Human Sacrifice Recap
Phoenician child sacrifice, as potentially practiced in Carthage and other Punic sites before 146 BCE, was a religious offering, likely to appease gods like Baal Hammon or Tanit. Ancient sources (e.g., Diodorus Siculus) and tophet remains suggest infants were burned in a sacred precinct, possibly alive, as a communal act of devotion or crisis response. It was rooted in a polytheistic, Semitic worldview, tied to divine favor and cosmic order, and faded under Roman rule, with Neo-Punic religion adapting or abandoning it by the early centuries CE.
What Were Auto-da-Fés?
An auto-da-fé (Portuguese/Spanish for "act of faith") was a public ceremony during the Inquisition, particularly in Spain and Portugal (15th–19th centuries), where heretics, Jews, Muslims, or others deemed threats to Catholic orthodoxy were tried, often tortured, and sometimes executed—typically by burning at the stake. The first recorded instance was in Seville in 1481, under Ferdinand II and Isabella I. It wasn’t a sacrifice to a deity but a judicial and theological spectacle, meant to purge sin, enforce conformity, and deter dissent. The burning followed secular execution (often garroting) for "relaxed" (condemned) prisoners, aligning with medieval Christian views of fire as purification (e.g., Purgatory imagery).
Surface Similarities
Fire: Both practices used burning, a dramatic and symbolically potent method. In Phoenician contexts, fire might have symbolized transformation or an offering ascending to the gods; in auto-da-fés, it echoed biblical punishments (e.g., Leviticus 20:14) and purified the community of heresy.
Public Ritual: Tophet sacrifices were likely communal events, witnessed by families or elites, while auto-da-fés were staged with crowds, sermons, and royal presence—both reinforcing social cohesion through spectacle.
Moral Framework: Each served a higher purpose—appeasing gods for Phoenicians, defending God’s law for Inquisitors.
Key Differences
Purpose: Phoenician sacrifice was an act of worship, giving something valuable to the divine. Auto-da-fés were punitive, not sacrificial—heretics weren’t "offered" to God but eliminated as contaminants. Christianity rejected human sacrifice outright (Hebrews 10:12), seeing Christ’s death as the final offering.
Victims: Phoenician rites targeted infants, often willingly given by parents (if ancient accounts hold). Auto-da-fés executed adults convicted of heresy, against their will, after trials.
Theology: Phoenician polytheism contrasts sharply with Catholic monotheism. The Inquisition’s fire was about judgment and earthly authority, not divine appeasement.
Historical Gap: Over 1,500 years separate Carthage’s fall (146 BCE) from the Inquisition’s rise (late 1400s CE). Neo-Punic religion had long faded, replaced by Roman paganism and then Christianity in North Africa and Iberia. No direct cultural thread links Punic tophets to medieval Spain.
Could There Be a Connection?
Indirect influence is conceivable but tenuous. Phoenician culture spread across the Mediterranean, including to Iberia (e.g., Cádiz, a Phoenician-founded city), before Rome’s dominance. Burning as a ritual act might have lingered in collective memory, influencing later practices. Early Christian and Jewish traditions in the region, aware of Canaanite/Punic sacrifice via the Bible (e.g., Molech warnings in Leviticus), could have shaped a punitive fire imagery—flipped from offering to punishment. Yet, the auto-da-fé’s roots lie more in Roman legal executions (e.g., burning for treason or sorcery) and medieval Christian eschatology than in Punic rites.
Spanish inquisitors weren’t reviving a Phoenician tradition—they drew from contemporary European norms (burning witches, heretics elsewhere) and Catholic zeal. Iberian Peninsula’s Phoenician past was distant by 1481, overtaken by Visigothic, Islamic, and Reconquista layers. No inquisitorial records or chroniclers (e.g., Tomás de Torquemada’s era) cite Punic precedent.
Conclusion
Auto-da-fés aren’t a continuation of Phoenician human sacrifice—they’re distinct phenomena with different aims, born from separate historical currents. The shared use of fire and ritual reflects universal human tendencies (purification, spectacle) rather than a lineage. It’s a compelling parallel, but the dots don’t connect historically or intentionally. What do you think—could there be a subtler cultural echo I’ve overlooked?
Bernd
Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:54:09 GMT
No. 25493974
>>25493994
Why don't you read some books written by actual humans on the subject instead of this slop? Do you need to have everything boiled down for you and expressed in elementary grade level terms?
Bernd
Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:58:15 GMT
No. 25493994
>>25493974
i read a lot. but there are only few uncensored books. and i like the fact that even superficial analysis by a robot makes more sense than (((catholic))) propaganda.
btw, 99% of books is catholic propaganda
Bernd
Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:27:07 GMT
No. 25494091
chatgpt is not so censored if you tame it with memories mine was fine with me saying trannies are mentally ill and muhammad was a pagan
Bernd
Sat, 22 Feb 2025 18:57:29 GMT
No. 25494849
>>25496540
>An auto-da-fé (Portuguese/Spanish for "act of faith") was a public ceremony during the Inquisition, particularly in Spain and Portugal (15th–19th centuries), where heretics, Jews, Muslims, or others deemed threats to Catholic orthodoxy were tried, often tortured, and sometimes executed—typically by burning at the stake.
This is bullshit.
The Inquisition doesn't care about Jews, Muslims, or others deemed threats to Catholic orthodoxy, because the Inquisition only concerned about the orthodoxy of the Christian faith. So logically and juridically people that are not even Christians were never subject to inquisition.
That is all jewish/protestant black propaganda.
Bernd
Sun, 23 Feb 2025 01:56:35 GMT
No. 25496381
imagine being jesus and pushing christian propaganda among jews.
something is wrong about this idea
Bernd
Sun, 23 Feb 2025 02:59:51 GMT
No. 25496540
>>25494849
>An auto-da-fé
>This is bullshit.
Primarily because Punic people sacrificed (their own) children and not some middle aged contrarians.
>>25494733
>toaf
Fits much better because it is child sacrifice.
Another similarity to oriental cults is ritual castration of (preferred) children.
If someone 30 years ago would have told me that at 2020 people castrate their own children for a bizarre cult, I wouldn't have believed it, told him to seek counseling for his crazy extremist fantasies.
Bernd
Sun, 23 Feb 2025 02:00:54 GMT