Carthage DID NOT sacrifice infants - a Pittsburgh study reveals

[DAVIDE]

Pitt-led study debunks millennia-old claims of systematic infant sacrifice in ancient Carthage

Researchers examined 348 burial urns to learn that about a fifth of the children were prenatal at death, indicating that young Carthaginian children were cremated and interred in ceremonial urns regardless of cause of death

PITTSBURGH—A study led by University of Pittsburgh researchers could finally lay to rest the millennia-old conjecture that the ancient empire of Carthage regularly sacrificed its youngest citizens. An examination of the remains of Carthaginian children revealed that most infants perished prenatally or very shortly after birth and were unlikely to have lived long enough to be sacrificed, according to a Feb. 17 report in PLoS ONE.
The findings—based on the first published analysis of the skeletal remains found in Carthaginian burial urns—refute claims from as early as the 3rd century BCE of systematic infant sacrifice at Carthage that remain a subject of debate among biblical scholars and archaeologists, said lead researcher Jeffrey H. Schwartz, a professor of anthropology and history and philosophy of science in Pitt's School of Arts and Sciences and president of the World Academy of Art and Science. Schwartz and his colleagues present the more benign interpretation that very young Punic children were cremated and interred in burial urns regardless of how they died.
"Our study emphasizes that historical scientists must consider all evidence when deciphering ancient societal behavior," Schwartz said. "The idea of regular infant sacrifice in Carthage is not based on a study of the cremated remains, but on instances of human sacrifice reported by a few ancient chroniclers, inferred from ambiguous Carthaginian inscriptions, and referenced in the Old Testament. Our results show that some children were sacrificed, but they contradict the conclusion that Carthaginians were a brutal bunch who regularly sacrificed their own children."
Schwartz worked with Frank Houghton of the Veterans Research Foundation of Pittsburgh, Roberto Macchiarelli of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, and Luca Bondioli of the National Museum of Prehistory and Ethnography in Rome to inspect the remains of children found in Tophets, burial sites peripheral to conventional Carthaginian cemeteries for older children and adults. Tophets housed urns containing the cremated remains of young children and animals, which led to the theory that they were reserved for victims of sacrifice.
Schwartz and his coauthors tested the all-sacrifice claim by examining the skeletal remains from 348 urns for developmental markers that would determine the children's age at death. Schwartz and Houghton recorded skull, hip, long bone, and tooth measurements that indicated most of the children died in their first year with a sizeable number aged only two to five months, and that at least 20 percent of the sample was prenatal.
Schwartz and Houghton then selected teeth from 50 individuals they concluded had died before or shortly after birth and sent them to Macchiarelli and Bondioli, who examined the samples for a neonatal line. This opaque band forms in human teeth between the interruption of enamel production at birth and its resumption within two weeks of life. Identification of this line is commonly used to determine an infant's age at death. Macchiarelli and Bondioli found a neonatal line in the teeth of 24 individuals, meaning that the remaining 26 individuals died prenatally or within two weeks of birth, the researchers reported.
The contents of the urns also dispel the possibility of mass infant sacrifice, Schwartz and Houghton noted. No urn contained enough skeletal material to suggest the presence of more than two complete individuals. Although many urns contained some superfluous fragments belonging to additional children, the researchers concluded that these bones remained from previous cremations and may have inadvertently been mixed with the ashes of subsequent cremations.
The team's report also disputes the contention that Carthaginians specifically sacrificed first-born males. Schwartz and Houghton determined sex by measuring the sciatic notch—a crevice at the rear of the pelvis that's wider in females—of 70 hipbones. They discovered that 38 pelvises came from females and 26 from males. Two others were likely female, one likely male, and three undetermined.
Schwartz and his colleagues conclude that the high incidence of prenate and infant mortality are consistent with modern data on stillbirths, miscarriages, and infant death. They write that if conditions in other ancient cities held in Carthage, young and unborn children could have easily succumbed to the diseases and sanitary shortcomings found in such cities as Rome and Pompeii.


Source:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-psd021710.php

Not a so great news at the end. Studies already made in loco years ago, reported what this brandnew research revealed. No sacrifices at all. Same opinion Mohammad Fantar of Tunis university always had and opinion i report you here.


M.H. Fantar:

Were it not for a few classical accounts, scholars would probably not attribute the burials in the Carthage Tophet to child sacrifice. Some of the more sensational stories, such as those related by the first-century B.C. historian Diodorus Siculus, have been picked up in modern times and passed off as the entire truth. In the 19th century, for instance, Gustave Flaubert described Punic child sacrifices in his novel Salammbô; he had no evidence at all, except for the classical sources.
What if, however, the classical sources are unreliable? Indeed, what if all the evidence regarding the burials‹either from literary sources or archaeological excavations‹is unreliable or inconclusive?
Here is Diodorus's account of how the Carthaginians sacrificed their children: "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire" (Library of History 20.6- 7).
This is the stuff of myth, not history. Diodorus, who was from Sicily, was probably mixing up stories about Carthage with ancient Sicilian myths‹ specifically the myth of the great bronze bull, built for the Sicilian tyrant Phalaris, in which the king's enemies were roasted alive.
Now, when we come to more credible sources, like the Roman historian Polybius (c. 200-118 B.C.), there is no mention of Carthaginian child sacrifice. Polybius, we know, was with the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus when he destroyed Punic Carthage in 146 B.C. Polybius had no love of Carthage; he fought against the city. His evidence would have been decisive. But he does not make the least allusion to child sacrifice at Carthage.
Nor does the Roman historian Livy (c. 64 B.C.-12 A.D.), a more reliable contemporary of Diodorus. Livy was relatively well informed about Carthage, yet he was not so affectionate toward the city as to cover up what would have been in his eyes the worst of infamies: the deliberate slaughter of children.


So it is not clear at all from the classical sources that the Carthaginians sacrificed their children to the gods. What about the biblical verses often taken as evidence of child sacrifice among the Canaanites particularly the Phoenicians, who established Carthage? The word "Tophet" is only known from the Hebrew Bible; it occurs several times in Jeremiah, once in Isaiah and once in Kings, always in the same context: "He [the late- seventh-century B.C. Judahite king Josiah] defiled Tophet, which is in the valley of Ben-hinnom, so that no one would make a son or a daughter pass through fire as an offering to Moloch" (2 Kings 23:10). So strong a connection has been presumed between such biblical passages and the Punic sanctuaries that these sacred grounds in Carthage and elsewhere are now called Tophets. The fact is, however, that the biblical passages do not mention sacrifice. They only refer to passing children through fire.
Neither the classical sources nor the biblical passages provide conclusive evidence concerning the events that took place in the Carthage Tophet. What about the physical facts?
The Tophet was a sacred space where urns containing the incinerated bones of children were buried. These remains, moreover, were no doubt buried ritually, in accord with Punic religious or cultic laws. Marking some urns are stelae bearing Phoenician inscriptions, along with symbols (like the triangular symbol of the goddess Tanit) and figural images. The incinerated remains are those of very young children, even fetuses; in certain urns, the bones of animals have been discovered. In some cases the urns contain the remains of children and animals mixed together. How do we account for these facts?
Some historians, such as the French scholar Hélène Benichou-Safar, have proposed that the Carthage Tophet was simply a children's cemetery in which incineration was the method of burial. This interpretation, however, confronts a sizable obstacle: Many of the thousands of inscriptions engraved on the burial stelae are votive. The inscriptions make offerings and vows to the gods, and they plead for the gods' blessing. Not one of these inscriptions, however, mentions death.
The Carthage Tophet, like other Tophets in Sicily and Sardinia, was not a necropolis. It was a sanctuary of the Punic god Ba'al Hammon.
The texts of the inscriptions in the Carthage Tophet suggest that the sanctuary was open to everyone, regardless of nationality or social status. We know that Greek-speaking people made use of the sanctuary, for instance, since some inscriptions have the names of the gods transcribed in Greek characters. Foreigners who visited the Tophet clearly did not offer Ba'al Hammon their offspring. Nor is it likely that visitors from other Punic settlements visited the Carthage Tophet to bury or sacrifice their children. One inscription, for example, mentions a woman named "Arishat daughter of Ozmik." The inscription tells us that Arishat was a "Baalat Eryx," or noble woman of Eryx, a Punic community in Sicily. It seems reasonable to assume that Arishat, while visiting the great city of Carthage, simply felt the need to pay homage to the Punic gods or to utter a vow or make a request.
The Carthage Tophet was a sacred sanctuary where people came to make vows and address requests to Ba'al Hammon and his consort Tanit, according to the formula do ut des ("I give in order that you give"). Each vow was accompanied by an offering.
Some of the stelae suggest that animals were sacrificed and then offered to the gods. For example, some stelae bear engraved depictions of altars and the heads of the animal victims.
The presence of the incinerated bones of very young children, infants and even fetuses is puzzling. If the Tophet was not a cemetery (as the presence of animal bones suggests), why do we find infants and fetuses buried in a sanctuary?
It is very common, all over the world, to find that children who die young, and especially fetuses, are accorded special status. Many cultures believe that these are simply not ordinary deaths. The Italian archaeologist Sabatino Moscati has pointed out that in certain Greek necropolises children were incinerated and their tombs were located in a separate sector, quite distinct from the burial place used for adults. This is also the case in some Islamic necropolises, where sections are reserved exclusively for the tombs of infants. Even today, Japanese children who die young, called Gizu, are placed in special areas of a temple, and they are represented by carved figurines that suggest their holy status.
Similarly, Punic children who died young possessed a special status. They were accordingly incinerated and buried inside an enclosure reserved for the cult of lord Ba'al Hammon and lady Tanit. These children were not "dead" in the usual sense of the word; rather, they were retroceded. For mysterious reasons, Ba'al Hammon decided to recall them to himself. Submitting to divine will, the parents returned the child, giving it back to the god according to a ritual that involved, among other things, incineration and burial. In return, the parents hoped that Ba'al Hammon and Tanit would provide a replacement for the retroceded child‹and this request was inscribed on a funeral stela.
Thus the Tophet burials were not true offerings of children to the gods. Rather, they were restitutions of children or fetuses taken prematurely, by natural death.
Carthaginians did not sacrifice their children to Ba'al Hammon in the Tophet. This open-air site, accessible to all who cared to visit the place, was a sacred sanctuary presided over by Ba'al Hammon and his consort Tanit. The human remains found in the urns buried in the Tophet were of children recalled to the presence of the gods; that is why they were buried in the sanctuary. To this sanctuary came grieving parents, who gave their children back to Ba'al Hammon and Tanit. Sometimes the parents would offer animal sacrifices to the gods to solicit their favor. Then they had funeral stelae carved and inscribed with vows, along with the poignant request that the divine couple grant them further offspring.

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

I never bought that story either.

[conon394]

Interesting – but don’t jump the gun. Forensics on ancient remains is tricky and usually impacted by rather largely by the assumptions of the researchers.

Compare for example the nasty arguments and completely different interpretations of who was buried in the tomb of ‘Phillip II”; or the similarly rancorous on going debate about the conclusions of the team that announced the Homo floresiensis discovery or somewhat similar is the oft cited cocaine mummy findings.

All in all it will take time to see how the conclusions hold up in the give and take of peer review and criticism.

On a side note the article looks to have been published as an open online article on something called PLoS One (???) any reason the authors could not swing publication some where with more heft (citing Phonecia.org – that’s questionable.)

Reading the paper I don’t see the weight of evidence to really support the newspaper headline conclusion of debunking. The sacrifice of babies does not preclude the ritual burial of neonates… (they might suggest some issue or at minimum a ritual impurity)

After all of the sample 337 remains are still categorized as significantly post birth children – compared to 142 neonates and 74 at Birth. What strikes me as missing for real debunking is a discussion of the age range in the non – Tophat cemeteries of children, and the presents or absence of animal bones as well. It would also be helpful if the Authors could provide any sense that their assertion about the nature of death they suggest for the post birth children was correct. They are conspicuous in not referencing or discussing theses points that seems problematic to me – given the existence of other evidence suggesting fairly regular sacrifice.

----

Sorry but M.H. Fantar is playing. Absence from Polybius does not equal absence of evidence and picking on Diodorus is always fun not always correct– and…

Roman historian Polybius (c. 200-118 B.C.), there is no mention of Carthaginian child sacrifice. Polybius, we know, was with the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus when he destroyed Punic Carthage in 146 B.C. Polybius had no love of Carthage; he fought against the city

Originally Greek he means and was once a hostage of Rome. Did Polybius fight; I don’t recall he ever held a formal Roman command and let’s recall he was also a keen admirer of Philopoemen hardly a friend of Rome.

[DAVIDE]

I post you a more detailed report Conon:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Introduction



Some biblical scholars maintain that the Carthaginians frequently and systematically practiced infant sacrifice perhaps as early as Queen Dido's founding of the Phoenician colony on the northern coast of Africa in the 9th or 8th century BCE until 146 BCE, when the Romans won the third and last Punic War [1]–[5]. This interpretation derives from the following: 1) Kleitarchos (3rd c. BCE) described Carthaginians throwing live infants onto a pyre, Diodorus Siculus (1st c. BCE) told of infants' throats being slit prior to cremation, and non-eyewitness reports claim the simultaneous sacrifice and burning of many children; 2) since the Eastern Mediterranean Phoenicians were the Canaanites described in the Old Testament as actually or potentially sacrificing offspring, and specifically first-born males, they continued this ritual as Carthage and its colonies; 3) the centrally situated Carthaginian cemetery contains remains of children and adults while a geographically separate area (the Tophet, Figure 1A) presents small urns (Figure 1B) with burned bones of very young animals (usually lamb or kid), humans (single or multiple individuals) (Figure 1C) and, occasionally, both; 4) inscriptions on some Tophet grave markers (stelae) (Figure 1D) suggest an offering was made to one or both primary deities, Ba'al Hamon and Tanit; and 5) one stela depicts a man, interpreted as a priest, carrying a child. The “all humans were sacrificed” thesis also rests on the argument that, since the animals interred in the Tophet were surely sacrificial victims, so too were the humans also interred in the Tophet [4], [5].




Figure 1. Location of Carthage and excavation of, including objects associated with, the Tophet.
A: Map of Western Mediterranean showing location and landmarks of Carthage. B: In order to excavate the Tophet, water had to be continually pumped out of the site (arrows point to urns). C: Broken urn revealing calcined bones and sediment that had seeped in as the water table rose. D: Stelae with different amounts of detail (e.g. one bears an image of an urn and another an inscription).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009177.g001



Other biblical scholars [6]–[14], upon reviewing the evidence from the Tophet at Carthage and others at Carthaginian settlements in Cyprus and Sardinia, admit that humans may occasionally have been sacrificed, but also argue that sacrifice alone was not the primary factor underlying human interment in Tophets because: 1) perinatal humans, perhaps stillborn, have tentatively been identified at these sites; 2) the general age-representation of these human samples is consistent with infant mortality, which would have been high; 3) the presence of the very youngest humans in marginally rather than in cross-generational and centrally located cemeteries attests to attributes specific to the young, such as death before at age at which they would have been accepted into society as real individuals; 4) postmortem human cremations were offerings to the deities; and 5) the classical “descriptions” of repeated, large-scale infant sacrifice were exaggerations if not anti-Carthaginian propaganda.
In the latter 1970s, excavations at Carthage were undertaken as part of a UNESCO sponsored, multinational archaeological effort to salvage as much information as possible from the vast site before expansion of building covered everything. The Tunisian Department of Antiquities granted permission to the American Team to excavate and analyze all material–osteological or otherwise–recovered from the Tophet. Once urns were removed from the field, the processing, sorting, osteological analyses of their contents, and the presentation of the results was under the direction of JHS.
Here we provide the results of the first in-depth study not only of the largest sample of the skeletal remains (348 urn contents) from the Tophet at Carthage (summer field seasons 1976 to 1979), but from any Carthaginian Tophet of [see Supporting Information Tables S1, S2]. Our objective was to address the following questions. Were all humans interred in the Tophet sacrificed? Whether sacrificed or merely cremated, how many individuals per event were involved (one, two, or en masse)? Regardless of number of individuals, was each treated with care from pre- to post-cremation? And, as inferred from passages in the Old Testament, were victims exclusively male?


Methods

Because the water table rose subsequent to use of the Carthaginian Tophet, JHS determined that each excavated urn should be placed in a water-filled bucket until he could extract its contents; otherwise dissolved calcium carbonate would solidify urn contents into a cement-like block as they dried [15], [16]. A weak stream of water aided in removing urn contents onto plastic mesh supported above ground, and in removing adherent silt as urn contents were separated and laid out in a single layer to dry. Bones and teeth, clay that once sealed the urn's mouth, charcoal, urn fragments, and/or amulets or other objects removed from the urn were then sorted [15], [16]. The individualistically stylized and decorated, but poorly fired red-clay urns of the earlier Carthaginian phases were more frequently broken–likely from the weight of water-logged soil and subsequent urn burials–than the more uniform yellow-clay urns of later phases [2], [5], [16].
Since damage to urns and dislodging of the clay seal made possible the loss of material from an urn as well as the intrusion of silts and even bones into the urn [15], soil around the urn was collected to determine the presence of osteological material (JHS). With the exception of the rare small fragment, this “extra-urn” soil was free of burned human bone; on one occasion part of a recent sheep scapula was found inside an urn. The primary intrusive material was, therefore, earth, which seeped in with the water. The complete list of the osteological remains recovered is presented in Tables S1, S2 (Supporting Information). All bones were inspected for evidence of cut marks and other signs of trauma but none was discovered.
Age estimation was based on comparative measurements of skeletal elements (basilar portion of the occipital or basilaris, sphenoid, petrosal, ischium, and pubis) [17], states of tooth formation [18], and presence or absence of a neonatal line (NL) in the enamel of tooth crowns. The transition from an intra- to extra-uterine environment leaves its mark in deciduous teeth and first permanent molars (the mesial cusp) as an accentuated enamel incremental ring called the neonatal line (NL) [19], [20] (see Figure 2). The NL, which separates the enamel formed during intrauterine life from that formed after leaving the womb, is observable in individuals who survive at least 7 to 10–15 days ex utero [21]–[24].




Figure 2. Presence versus absence of neonatal line (NL).
A: Longitudinal/buccolingual thin-section of a human upper deciduous central incisor (Urn no. 5817) with a 9.7 µm-thick NL on the buccal (right) side, close to the external enamel margin; the relatively thin postnatal enamel and the distance of the NL from the tooth apex (5.222,5 µm) suggest that the individual survived postpartum at least 10 and perhaps as many as 15 days. B: Close-up of NL (Urn no. 5817). C: Longitudinal/buccolingual thin-section of a human upper deciduous central incisor (Urn no. 6003) lacking an NL. D: Close-up of thin-section of a human upper deciduous central incisor lacking NL (Urn no. 5880; arrows point to Retzius lines). Scale = 30 µm.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009177.g002


Given the periodicity of enamel deposition and the fact that prenatal enamel does not normally present accentuated lines, an NL is the first postnatal hypoplasia (i.e. stress-induced alteration of enamel deposition). It thus marks the brief period of disruption of enamel secretion (decrease in daily rates of enamel formation) that occurs immediately postpartum. The emergence of an NL most likely reflects a drop in blood serum calcium values during the first 48 to 72 hours ex-utero [25], [26], as well as the dynamics of a fetus leaving the womb [27].
An NL can be identified easily in ground sections because both the difference in quality between pre- and postnatal enamel and its characteristic location is specific for each tooth class [24], [28]. In incisors, this line extends from the dentino-enamel junction at the cervix (neck) of the crown onto the crown's surface, leaving only a small portion of postnatally formed enamel. In canines and molars, this line is present closer to the incisal/occlusal part of the enamel, with only a small portion of prenatally formed enamel present [29]. Postpartum, the crown thickens via apposition of additional layers of enamel [30].
Analysis of NL presence/absence is routine in forensic investigations, which is noted not only in its increasingly prevalence in analyses of archaeological populations [31]–[34], but especially now in its application to fossil human teeth [35], [36]. Indeed, NL analysis has rapidly become the only currently available osteodontic analytical technique capable of discriminating between infant death during the first postpartum week and the succeeding three weeks.
For this analysis, JHS and FH sent LB and RM well-preserved crowns of deciduous incisors and deciduous molars of 50 individuals, whose estimated ages bracketed the morphologically determined perinatal period and thus the period of transition from in- to ex-utero. Only specimen numbers were provided to LB and RM.
Specimens were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath and embedded in epoxy resin. Longitudinal labio- (bucco-) lingually oriented ground sections were prepared with a diamond blade microtome (Leica 1600) following the protocol of Caropreso et al. [37]. The sectional plane was situated as close as possible to the tip of the dentine horn (for the two deciduous molars, the dentine horns of the mesial cusps). While the quality of the cutting procedure was not always assured because of the condition of the tooth crowns, most specimens were sufficiently preserved enamel to permit reliable NL site-specific assessment.
At least three thin sections per specimen were produced. ~300 µm-thick slices were subsequently reduced to 80–100 µm with a motorized grinder (Minimet 1000 Buehler), polished, mounted for routine microscopy, and then etched for few seconds with a gel of phosphoric acid in order to enhance enamel microstructure. Of the three slides per tooth, the one with the least diagenetic damage and the most clear-cut microstructure was used in the analysis [33].
Sections were scrutinized under polarized light with an optical transmitted-light microscope (Laborlux S, Leica AG) and images taken with Polaroid Digital Microscope Camera (DMC 1) at 100× and 400×. Contrast enhancement convolution filters (3×3 and 5×5 kernels) produced sharper detail while change in the look-up table function increased site-specific contrasts of intensity profiles. Several partial images (from 7 to 15) were used to reconstruct the entire crown as a digital photomosaic. Because tooth enamel contains significantly less organic material than bone (~1% vs. ~20%, respectively), it reacts differently to heat and is less prone to plastic deformation [38]. In addition to its rheological properties, the enamel of unerupted crowns experiences relatively limited cracking and flaking because the structure is buffered against the direct effects of heat by the surrounding bone of the jaw [39]–[41]. While the color of the outermost enamel surface clearly reflects changes in both the burning environment (reduced vs. oxygenic) and temperature [42], the effect of heat on inner enamel microstructure tends to be locally constrained [43], [44]. Within each tooth class, but independent of an individual's sex, the location of the NL is an indirect indicator of gestation length (time of initial mineralization in utero through postpartum), with pre-term birth shifting the line more occlusally [24], [28].


Results

Urn Contents

Urns could contain burned bones and teeth of humans, animals (primarily lamb or kid), or both (Table S1). There could be evidence in a single urn of only one human (Figure 3A) or, when number of duplicated parts was used to infer minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) (Figure 3E), as many as seven individuals (Table S2). In cases where one or two individuals were hypothesized present on the basis of MNI, the suite of preserved skeletal elements typically demonstrated that entire individuals had been interred. When, however, MNI indicated the presence of more than two individuals, sufficient numbers of duplicated bones and/or teeth could not be associated on the basis of size or burn pattern to reconstruct with confidence that number of individuals. Thus while multiple duplicates of a skeletal element may indeed reflect the prior existence of that number of individuals, the traditional approach to determining MNI does not provide evidence of an urn containing the complete or nearly complete skeletal remains of each of these individuals. Rather, there was never enough skeletal material to suggest that more than two (relatively) complete skeletons were placed in a single urn, which is inconsistent with a scenario of Carthaginians sacrificing or at least cremating groups of infants whose remains were then carefully collected and interred together in the same urn.


Figure 3. Examples of variably burned bone, female vs male ilia, and duplicate skeletal elements.
A: From a single urn, the calcined remains of the remains of a single individual (as reflected in the diversity and non-duplication of preserved skeletal elements). B: Reassociated, partially calcined upper and barely burned middle parts of a right humerus to illustrate the possible degree of fragmentation, dissociation, and consequent disparate crematory fates of parts of the same bone. C: Differentially charred cervical vertebrae still in anatomical position representing one of various indications of incomplete cremation. D: Various pelvic ilia with intact greater sciatic notches (indicated by arrows), whose width (from most to least obtuse) suggests classification as hyperfeminine (upper left), feminine (upper right), hypermasculine (lower left), and masculine (lower right). E: Two left (left) and four right unfused petrosal bones; a straightforward analysis of MNI may suggest the presence of four individuals, but detailed analysis of the urn contents that yielded these petrosals does not provide evidence of four complete individuals in the same urn. (Scales in mm.)
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009177.g003



Bones and teeth from the same individual were rarely uniformly charred or calcined, and many were only minimally affected by heat (Figure 3B,C). This irregular burning pattern is consistent with a body on a funeral pyre in which tinder and hot ash were unequal in size and uneven in distribution [45]–to which the presence of burnt small branches in urns attests [16]–and into which bones fell randomly as they separated or burst from the heat and at the same time that pyre-tenders prodded embers to maintain the intensity of the fire [46]. Consequently, when an urn contained nearly complete skeletons, multiple duplicates but little associated skeletal remains, or a single duplicated element amidst the relatively complete remains of one or two perinates, we could infer with confidence that if individuals had been dealt with separately, such attention did not persist beyond cremation. Instead, we suggest, bones and teeth that fell deep into the pyre were left behind and inadvertently collected with the remains of subsequently cremated individuals. Similarly, if multiple cremations had occurred, either simultaneously or in short succession, there was obviously no attempt to prevent comingling of bones and teeth from different individuals.


Determination of Sex

Seventy pelvic ilia were sufficiently preserved for visual assessment of sex, for which we relied on angle and depth of the greater sciatic notch and, when preserved sufficiently to be scrutinized, curvature of the iliac crest (Figure 3D). In Schutkowski's [47] study of a sample of children sexes and ages-at-death were well-documented, greater sciatic notch angle correctly assigned, respectively, males 95% and females 71.4%, notch depth 81.2% and 76.5%, and crest curvature 81.2% and 62.1% of the time. In our sample of ilia, 26 very probably and one questionably represented male, and 38 probably and two more questionably female (Table 1); three specimens were indeterminate. Given the likelihood that at least some individuals we identified as female were indeed female, the hypothesis of first-born males being the focus of a Carthaginian ritual of sacrifice is falsified.



Table 1. Probable Sex of Human Remains [based on Greater Sciatic Notch (GSN) width], Carthaginian Tophet.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009177.t001



Estimation of Age: Tooth Formation and Osteometrics

Only bones and teeth and tooth crowns that were preserved sufficiently intact to provide an accurate (not estimated) measurement were used in our estimation of age. Based on skeletal measurements (of the basilar portion of the occipital or basilaris, sphenoid, petrosal, ischium, and pubis; Tables S3, S4) [17], as well as relative states of tooth formation (Table S2) [18], most of the sample fell within the range of 2 to 12 postnatal months, clustering between 2 and 5 months at death (Table S2). At least another 20% of the sample (depending on the representation of the specific skeletal element) could be identified as prenatal. These results are consistent with modern infant mortality data [48], [49]. We ruled out misclassifying infants of “low birth weight” (LBW) as prenatal because, while mortality is 40% higher in perinates <2500 gm than infants of normal birth weight [50], LBW is not reflected in diminished bone length or retarded tooth development [51].
Although experiments on heat-induced bone shrinkage were not done in the manner of Carthaginian cremation, we nonetheless thought it prudent to consider them. Most of these studies used ovens rather than fire as well as dry and defleshed green rather than fleshed bone [e.g. 52]–[54]. In all cases, bone shrinkage was minimal. Richard [55] did, however, cremate parts of human infant cadavers, but focused only on temperature and degree of bone carbonation and calcination. Baby [56], who cremated fleshed adult human remains, concluded that bone size was either not, or at most only minimally, altered. Buikstra and Swegle [57] cremated fleshed adult animal remains and found that while bone shrinkage could be as much as 6%, in general, bone size was minimally affected. Dokládal [58] compared bones from cremated halves of five adult cadavers with their uncremated counterparts and reported shrinkage between 5 and 12%. Muller's [59] cremations of defleshed human fetal and newborn bones suggest shrinkage could reach 10%.
Although some Carthaginian perinates' bones were barely charred–and thus their exposure to heat minimal [46]–we increased all of our measurements by 5, 10 and then an extreme 25% in order to account for any possible shrinkage (Figure 4). Even at 25% increase in size, most of our analyses still classified some individuals as prenates and thus not available for sacrifice.




Figure 4. Plots of ages-at-death determined by actual (maximum) and incrementally increased size of skeletal elements sufficiently preserved for accurate measurement.
A: Hypophyseal fossa length. B: Hypophyseal fossa width. C: Petrosal length. D: Petrosal width. E: Pars basilaris length. F: Pars basilaris width. G: Ischium length. H: Ischium height. I: Pubis length. In the graph, the same bones are compared to data from Fazekas and Kósa [17] and also increased by 5, 10 and 25%. The horizontal line in each represents birth.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009177.g004



Estimation of Age: Neonatal Line (NL) Analysis

In the Carthaginian sample, NL thickness ranged from 6.3 to 14.5 µm, with a mean of 10.1 µm (±2.76 µm). Comparative estimates obtained by the same investigative methods on deciduous teeth of all morphological classes were available from 124 crowns representing 102 modern European children [43], [60] and from 209 crowns representing 109 children (aged 6 months to 9 years) buried at the Imperial Roman cemetery of Isola Sacra [31], [60]. In the modern sample, NL thickness ranged from 6.5 to 50.9 µm and the mean value corresponded to 17.3 µm (±7.97 µm). In the archaeological sample, the range of variation range 9–36 µm with a mean of 16.7 µm (±4.40 µm). Additional values from a modern sample of 147 children ranged from 10 to 24 µm [27].
An NL results from perturbation in matrix deposition of enamel prisms reflecting stress in the transition from an intra- to extra-uterine environment (Figure 2), which does not always correspond to parturition following a full-term pregnancy [61]. Given the periodicity of enamel deposition, a newborn must survive at least 7 and even as many as 10 to 15 extra-uterine days in order for an NL to emerge fully. A definitive NL was observed in 24 Carthaginian specimens (Table 2); the amount of subsequent enamel deposition suggests these individuals survived at least 2 weeks postpartum. An NL was absent in 26 Carthaginian specimens (Table 2), which suggests that these individuals were either stillborn, spontaneously aborted, or died during the first extra-uterine week. Unambiguous counts and measurements of daily enamel cross-striations, which provide information on the timing and rate of enamel deposition and thus indirect evidence of gestation length [31], [33], could not be obtained on this sample. However, because other analyses in our study indicate the presence of individuals who had not reached full term, we suggest that individuals lacking an NL probably fall into the prenatal category because comparison of morphological/metric and NL age estimates demonstrates that when they differed, the histological (NL) age more frequently over-aged individuals than did morphological age (M<H 22%, M>H 10%; see Table 3). Consequently, if we include with the prenates those individuals who did not survive beyond one or even two weeks postpartum, we must conclude that a significant number of individuals could not have been sacrificed because they were either not alive or not yet old enough to be considered viable sacrificial entities [7], [8], [10], [13] (Figure 5).




Figure 5. Distribution of Ages-at-Death Based on Analysis of Human Remains, Carthaginian Tophet.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009177.g005


Table 2. Neonatal Line (NL) Analysis of Human Deciduous Teeth (N = 50), Carthaginian Tophet.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009177.t002


Table 3. Comparison of Ages-at-Death Determined by Neonatal Line [Histological (H)] and Morphological (M) Analyses of Human Deciduous Teeth, Carthaginian Tophet.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009177.t003



Discussion

The identification of prenatal individuals in the Carthaginian Tophet sample is consistent with current data from modern-day studies on the incidence of stillbirth and spontaneous abortion as being the primary contributors to “reproductive wastage” [62], as well as with recent data on infant mortality [48], [49]. For example, in England and Wales from 1969 to 1976, 48.4% of 6517 deaths within two weeks of live birth occurred between 30 minutes and 24 hours and 39.3% between 7 and 13 days [61]. These statistics easily accommodate our results.
Infectious diseases known to lead to stillbirth include smallpox, vaccinia, and listeriosis; those resulting in prematurity and perinatal mortality include severe viral infections and malaria [49]. Noninfectious diseases resulting in stillbirth, abortion, or preterm delivery include cholestasis, hypertension, toxemia, and renal disease [50]. The Carthaginians were probably exposed to and susceptible to all of these afflictions. If conditions of sanitation at Carthage, including management of water supply and human and animal excreta, were similar to those at Pompeii, Ostia, and Rome [63], the Carthaginians would also have been potential victims to and vectors of cholera, dysentery, gastroenteritis, infectious hepatitis, leptospirosis, typhoid, and parasitic intestinal infestations, most of which result in severe dehydration, which is a common cause of infant death [50].
In sum, while the Carthaginians may occasionally have practiced human sacrifice, as did other circum-Mediterranean societies [1], [63], [64], our analyses do not support the contention that all humans interred in the Tophet had been sacrificed. Rather, it would appear that the Carthaginian Tophet, and by extension Tophets at Carthaginian settlements in general, were cemeteries for the remains of human prenates and infants who died from a variety of causes and then cremated and whose remains, sometimes on a catch-as-catch-can basis, interred in urns. Following widespread practice at this time in history, it is likely that at least some, if not all, of the cremated animal remains represent sacrificial offerings.


Supporting Information


Table S1.
Species Identification of Skeletal Remains from Urns, Carthaginian Tophet.
(0.33 MB DOC)
Table S2.
Demographic Profile of Human Remains, Carthaginian Tophet.
(0.93 MB DOC)
Table S3.
Dimensions of Human Cranial Bones (in mm.), Carthaginian Tophet.
(0.33 MB DOC)
Table S4.
Dimensions of Human Pelvic Bones (in mm.), Carthaginian Tophet.
(0.12 MB DOC)





References

1. Brown S (1991) Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
2. Harden D (1963) The Phoenicians. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
3. Mosca PG (1975) Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
4. Stager LE, Greene JA (2007) Child sacrifice: yes, children of Phoenician/Punic Carthage were sacrificed to the gods. pp. 2–3. http://phoeniciaorg/childsacrificehtml.
5. Stager LE, Wolf SR (1984) Child sacrifice at Carthage: Religious rite or population control. Biblical Archaeology Review 10: 31–51. Find this article online
6. Agelarakis AP, Kanta A, Stampolidis N (1998) The osseous record in the Western Necropolis of Amathous: an archaeo-anthropological investigation. In: Karageorghis V, Stampolidis N, editors. Eastern Mediterranean Cyprus-Dodecanses-Crete 16th-6th cent BC. Heraklion: University of Crete. pp. 217–232.
7. Benichou-Safar H (1981) A propos des ossements humains du tophet de Carthage. Rivista di Studi Fenici 5: 5–9. Find this article online
8. Bartoloni P (2006) Il Tophet: un pietoso rito offuscato da troppo miti. Darwin Quaderni 1: 68–75. Find this article online
9. Conte S (2007) Child sacrifice: children of Phoenician Punic Carthage were not sacrificed to the gods. pp. 4–6. http://phoeniciaorg/childsacrificehtml.
10. Fantar MH (2007) Child sacrifice: child of Pheonician Punic Carthage were not sacrificed. pp. 2–4. http://phoeniciaorg/childsacrificehtml.
11. Fedele F, Foster C (1988) Tharros ovicaprini sacrificiali e rituale del Tofet. Rivista di Studi Fenici 16: 29–42. Find this article online
12. Lancel S (1995) Carthage: a history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Moscati S (1987) Il sacrificio punico dei fanciulli: realta or invenzione. Quaderni dell'Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 261: 4–15. Find this article online
14. Simonetti A (1983) Sacrifici umani e uccisioni rituali nel mondo Fenicio-Punico: il contributo delle fonti letterarie. Rivista di Studi Fenici 11: 91–111. Find this article online
15. Schwartz JH (1993) What the Bones Tell Us. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
16. Schwartz JH (1989) The Tophet and “sacrifice” at Phoenician Carthage: an osteologist's perspective. Terra 28: 16–25. Find this article online
17. Fazekas IG, Kósa F (1979) Forensic Fetal Osteology. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
18. Schwartz JH (2007) Skeleton Keys: an introduction to human skeletal morphology, development, and analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Rushton A (1939) The birifrangence of deciduous tooth enamel formed before and after birth. Britannic Dental Journal 67: 1–10. Find this article online
20. Kronfeld R, Schour I (1939) Neonatal dental hypoplasia. Journal of the American Dental Association 16: 18–20. Find this article online
21. Weber DF, Eisenmann D (1971) Microscopy of the neonatal line in developing human enamel. American Journal of Anatomy 132: 375–392. Find this article online
22. Whittaker DK, Richards D (1978) Scanning electron microscopy of the neonatal line in human enamel. Archives of Oral Biology 23: 45–50. Find this article online
23. Levine RS, Turner EP, Dobbing J (1979) Deciduous teeth contain histories of developmental disturbances. Early Human Development 3: 211–220. Find this article online
24. Skinner MF (1992) Gestation length and location of the neonatal line in human enamel. Journal of Paleopathology 2: 41–50. Find this article online
25. Seow WK (1986) Oral implication of premature birth. Australian Dental Journal 31: 23–29. Find this article online
26. Ranggard L, Norén JG, Nelson N (1994) Clinical and histologic appearance in enamel of primary teeth in relation to neonatal blood ionized calcium values. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research 102: 254–259. Find this article online
27. Eli I, Sarnat H, Talmi E (1989) Effect of the brith process on the neonatal line in primary tooth enamel. Pediatric Dentistry 11: 220–223. Find this article online
28. Skinner MF, Dupras T (1993) Variation in birth timing and location of the neonatal line in human enamel. Journal of Forensice Sciences 38: 1383–1390. Find this article online
29. Teivens A, Mornstad H, Norén JG, Gidlund E (1996) Variation in birth timing and location of the neonatal line in human enamel. Forensic Science International 81: 175–183. Find this article online
30. Shellis RP (1984) Variations in growth of the enamel crown in human teeth and a possible relationship between growth and enamel structure. Archives of Oral Biology 29: 697–705. Find this article online
31. Rossi PF, Bondioli L, Geusa G, Macchiarelli R (1999) Osteodental Biology of the People of Portus Romae (Necropolis of Isola Sacra, 2nd–3rd Cent. AD). I. Enamel Microstructure and Developmental Defects of the Primary Dentition. Rome: Museo Nazionale L. Pigorini.
32. Smith P, Avishai G (2005) The use of dental criteria for estimating postnatal survival in skeletal remains of infants. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 83–89. Find this article online
33. FitzGerald C, Saunders S, Bondioli L, Macchiarelli R (2006) Health of infants in an Imperial Roman skeletal sample: perspective from dental microstructure. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 130: 179–189. Find this article online
34. Macchiarelli R, Bondioli L, Caropreso S, Mazurier A, Merceron G, et al. (2006) The oldest human remains from the Beagle Channel, Tierra del Fuego. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16: 328–337. Find this article online
35. Macchiarelli R, Bondioli L, Debénath A, Mazurier A, Merceron G (2006) How Neanderthal teeth grew. Nature 444: 748–751. Find this article online
36. Smith TM, Toussaint M, Reid DJ, Olejniczak AJ, Hublin J-J (2007) Rapid dental development in a Middle Paleolithic Begian Neanderthal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 104: 20220–20225. Find this article online
37. Caropreso S, Bondioli L, Capannolo D, Cerroni L, Macchiarelli R, et al. (2000) Thin sections for hard tissues biology: a new procedure. Journal of Microscopy 199: 244–247. Find this article online
38. Gejvall N-G (1969) Cremations. In: Brothwell D, Higgs E, Clark G, editors. Science in Archaeology. 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson. pp. 468–479.
39. McKinley JI (1994) The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham. Part VIII: the Cremations. Dereham: Field Archaeology Division, Norfolk Museums Service.
40. Hillson S (1996) Dental Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Gatto E (2003) La Place de la Crémation dans le Traitement des Défunts à la Fin du Néolithique en France. Outils Méthodologiques et Etudes de Sites. Bordeaux: Université de Bordeaux 1: Find this article online
42. Susini A (2003) Etude des Caractéristiques Biophysiques des Tissus Calcifiés Humains Soumis à des Traitements Thermiques: Applications Anthropologiques et Médicales. Genève: Université de Genève.
43. Macchiarelli R, Petrone PP, Bondioli L (1996) I resti ossei combusti. Analisi morfologica ed istomorfometrica. Atti e Memorie della Società Magna Grecia 3: 101–104. Find this article online
44. Bondioli L, Macchiarelli R (1999) Indagini istomorfometriche sullo scheletro e sui denti di San Paolo Belsito. In: Fedele F, Petrone PP, editors. Un'Eruzione Vesuviana 4000 Anni Fa. Napoli: Fridericiana Editrice Universitaria. pp. 67–68.
45. McKinley JI (1989) Cremations: expectations, methodologies and realities. In: Roberts CA, Lee F, Bintliff J, editors. Burial Archaeology: Current Research, Methods and Developments. London: BAR British Series. pp. 65–76.
46. Gejvall N-G (1963) Cremations. In: Brothwell D, Higgs E, editors. Science in Archaeology: A Comprehensive Survey of Progress and Research. New York: Basic. pp. 379–390.
47. Schutkowski H (1993) Sex determination of infant and juvenile skeletons I. Morphognostic features. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90: 199–205. Find this article online
48. Saunders SR, Barrans L (1999) What can be done about the infant category in skeletal sample? In: Hoppa RD, Firzgerald CM, editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 183–209.
49. Taylor CM, Pernoll ML (1987) Normal pregnancy & prenatal care. In: Pernoll ML, Benson RC, editors. Current Obstetric & Gynecologic Diagnosis & Treatment 1987. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange. pp. 161–177.
50. Behrman RE, Shiono PH (1997) Neonatal risk factors. In: Fanaroff AA, Martin RJ, editors. Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine: Diseases of the Fetus and Infant. St. Loius: Mosby. pp. 3–12.
51. Jaya DS, Kumar NS, Bai LS (1995) Anthropometric indices, cord length and placental weight in newborns. Indian Pediatrics 32: 1183–1188. Find this article online
52. Pointek J (1976) The process of cremation and its influence on the morphology of bones in light of results of experimental research. Achaeologia Polski 21: 254–280. Find this article online
53. Shipman P, Forster G, Schoeninger M (1984) Burnt bones and teeth: an experimental study of colour, morphology, crystal structure and shrinkage. Journal of Archaeological Science 11: 307–325. Find this article online
54. Thurman MD, Willmore LJ (1981) A replicative cremation experiment. North American Archaeologist 2: 1980–1981. Find this article online
55. Richard J (1961) Etude Médico-Légale des Urnes Sacrificielles Puniques et de leur Contenu. Lille: Lille.
56. Baby RS (1954) Hopewell Cremation Practices. Columbus, OH: Ohio History Society.
57. Buikstra JE, Swegle M (1989) Bone modification due to burning: experimental evidence. In: Bonnischen R, Sorg MH, editors. Bone Modification. Orono, ME: University of Maine. pp. 247–258.
58. Dokládal M (1971) A further contribution to the morphology of burned bones. In: Novotny N, editor. Proceedings of the Anthropological Congress Dedicated to Ales Hrdlicka. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Science. pp. 561–568.
59. Muller M (1938) La calcinations du foetus en medicine légale. Bonn: Verhandlungsbericht des Internationalen Kongresses für gerichtliche und sociale Medizin.
60. Bondioli L, Macchiarelli R (1999) Neonatal line thickness and delivery at Isola Sacra (2nd–3rd cent. AD, Rome, Italy). American Journal of Physical Anthropology: Suppl. 2894–95. Find this article online
61. Chalmers J, Macfarlane A (1980) Interpretation of perinatal statistics. In: Wharton BA, editor. Topics in Perinatal Medicine. Tunbridge Wells, UK: Pitman Medical. pp. 1–11.
62. Durfee RB (1987) Obstetric complications of pregnancy. In: Wharton BA, editor. Topics in Perinatal Medicine. Tunbridge Wells, UK: Pitman Medical. pp. 255–278.
63. Scobie A (1986) Slums, sanitation, and mortality in the Roman world. Klio 2: 399–433. Find this article online
64. Moscati S (1965) The World of the Phoenicians. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0009177

[conon394]

I post you a more detailed report Conon:

Yea I read the paper - it still does not really debunk anything. It more or less an age analysis of a sample of remains from Carthage trophet.

As I said this kind of study is away dicey and a different group could come to very diffrent age determination given the level of uncertainty involved. Second the authors speculate about the reasons for the post birth deaths but offer not real discussion to back that up, as as far I have so far worked out their notes they do clearly establish a different in the non- trophet burial either by lacking sacrificial animals or a clear age limit (directly of with references).

Thus it might support the anti-sacrifice argument but I think you need a lot more work than I find in that paper.

[Hanny]

http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html
Arguments for and against the claim that the Phoenician/Punic practiced child sacrifice by M'hamed Hassine Fantar and Lawrence E. Stager and Jospeh A Greene, as well as a letter in support of M'hamed Fantar's view.NO, The Phoenician/Punic did not practice Child SacrificeYES, The Phoenician/Punic practiced Child Sacrifice

[DAVIDE]

Yea I read the paper - it still does not really debunk anything. It more or less an age analysis of a sample of remains from Carthage trophet.

As I said this kind of study is away dicey and a different group could come to very diffrent age determination given the level of uncertainty involved. Second the authors speculate about the reasons for the post birth deaths but offer not real discussion to back that up, as as far I have so far worked out their notes they do clearly establish a different in the non- trophet burial either by lacking sacrificial animals or a clear age limit (directly of with references).

Thus it might support the anti-sacrifice argument but I think you need a lot more work than I find in that paper.

Nothing that justifies eventual sacrifices. The literary evidence is questionable. Diodorus was writing to justify Roman aggression against Carthage. No material evidence has been found on the site about that. Furthermore, no other classical writer makes reference to Carthaginian human sacrifice which they surely would have done if it had been common practice. Biblical descriptions are unreliable. Firstly they refer to Phoenician practices rather than Punic. Secondly, they specify that only one child per family was sacrificed. The evidence in Tanit III specifically points to multiple burials. Many urns have been fund to include infants and young children. This could suggest a family burial, possibly due to high infant mortality resulting in the loss of multiple children.

[Hanny]

Nothing that justifies eventual sacrifices. The literary evidence is questionable. Diodorus was writing to justify Roman aggression against Carthage. No material evidence has been found on the site about that. Furthermore, no other classical writer makes reference to Carthaginian human sacrifice which they surely would have done if it had been common practice. Biblical descriptions are unreliable. Firstly they refer to Phoenician practices rather than Punic. Secondly, they specify that only one child per family was sacrificed. The evidence in Tanit III specifically points to multiple burials. Many urns have been fund to include infants and young children. This could suggest a family burial, possibly due to high infant mortality resulting in the loss of multiple children.

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes27...phoenicia.html

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes27...sacrifice.html

Greek, Romans and isreal historians all record the sacrifuce.
Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context. Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 22–23.
the lady Tanit ... . The hands of the statue extended over a brazier into which the child fell once the flames had caused the limbs to contract and its mouth to open ... . The child was alive and conscious when burned ... Philo of Alexandria specified that the sacrificed child was best-loved.


Carthage Tophet an estimated 20,000 urns were deposited between 400 BC and 200 BC

M’Hamed Hassine Fantar, Director of Research at the Institute of National Cultural Heritage, Tunisia, argues that the Tophet at Carthage was a cemetery for stillborns and infants who had died of natural causes, and whose bodies were then cremated.

Sergio Ribichini has argued that the Tophet was "a child necropolis designed to receive the remains of infants who had died prematurely of sickness or other natural causes, and who for this reason were "offered" to specific deities and buried in a place different from the one reserved for the ordinary dead".

Probably not a good idea to draw your samples from there then huh?.

[DAVIDE]

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes27...phoenicia.html

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes27...sacrifice.html

Greek, Romans and isreal historians all record the sacrifuce.
Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context. Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 22–23.
the lady Tanit ... . The hands of the statue extended over a brazier into which the child fell once the flames had caused the limbs to contract and its mouth to open ... . The child was alive and conscious when burned ... Philo of Alexandria specified that the sacrificed child was best-loved.


Carthage Tophet an estimated 20,000 urns were deposited between 400 BC and 200 BC

M’Hamed Hassine Fantar, Director of Research at the Institute of National Cultural Heritage, Tunisia, argues that the Tophet at Carthage was a cemetery for stillborns and infants who had died of natural causes, and whose bodies were then cremated.

Sergio Ribichini has argued that the Tophet was "a child necropolis designed to receive the remains of infants who had died prematurely of sickness or other natural causes, and who for this reason were "offered" to specific deities and buried in a place different from the one reserved for the ordinary dead".

Probably not a good idea to draw your samples from there then huh?.

Greek sources are unimportant and questionable about sacrifice. Bible is not a valid source. Greeks always had something against Carthaginians in their history for military or ideological or economical purposes. Same for Romans. It's an anti-Punic propaganda tale to show them as a subhuman civilization. Same of what US during WW2 made with Japs or Italians with Africans or USSR with Chinese and Japs. Just the fact single urns contains multiple human/animal remains of different age, is sufficent to dismantle the theory of regular sacrifices

[Hanny]

Greek sources are unimportant and questionable about sacrifice. Bible is not a valid source. Greeks always had something against Carthaginians in their history for military or ideological or economical purposes. Same for Romans. It's an anti-Punic propaganda tale to show them as a subhuman civilization. Same of what US during WW2 made with Japs or Italians with Africans or USSR with Chinese and Japs. Just the fact single urns contains multiple human/animal remains of different age, is sufficent to dismantle the theory of regular sacrifices

Nope, infaqnt sacrifice had been a requirement of the Phonician religion, the Punic took it with them and over centuries it became less practised, but that it happened is to my mind suported by text and archelogy and is not actualy worse than the people you say are doing it for propoganda purposes, and we knopw this because they wrote about it.

A conclusion is valid when the evidence supports sucha conclusion.

Its not like those same authors dont write that rome buried peopel alive to appease there gods or that Spartan children were left ouit overnight ona hill top to see if they were worth the effort of raising, or thatb gtreeks routinly killed deformed children etc.

Your confusing propaganda with evidence and reaching a false conclusion.

[SigniferOne]

If only 20% of the burials were prenatal, how does that prove that there were no sacrifices? That makes no sense at all!

And furthermore we have a lot more than just Diodorus's account on this one. Most heavily, we have Old Testament accounts of Caananites (e.g. Phoenicians) sacrificing as a regular part of their culture, and this report by Tertullian (2nd century AD):

In Africa infants used to be sacrificed to Saturn, and quite openly ... Yes, and to this day that holy crime persists in secret.

which shows that Carthaginians were still sacrificing, even in his day.


And it's not just these two. See what Wiki says:

Plutarch mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius, Diodorus Siculus and Philo.

That is entirely convincing information, if our job is to impartially investigate the evidence rather than try to create excuses for other cultures.

Greek sources are unimportant and questionable about sacrifice. Bible is not a valid source. Greeks always had something against Carthaginians in their history for military or ideological or economical purposes. Same for Romans.

This is not objectively evaluating the evidence. This is trying to make excuses for other cultures. There is nothing wrong with the Bible as a source for very specific things, e.g. ethnological descriptions of the Jewish tribes (which also sacrificed humans according to the Bible), and other tribes around them.

[DAVIDE]

If only 20% of the burials were prenatal, how does that prove that there were no sacrifices? That makes no sense at all!

And furthermore we have a lot more than just Diodorus's account on this one. Most heavily, we have Old Testament accounts of Caananites (e.g. Phoenicians) sacrificing as a regular part of their culture, and this report by Tertullian (2nd century AD):



which shows that Carthaginians were still sacrificing, even in his day.


And it's not just these two. See what Wiki says:

Plutarch mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius, Diodorus Siculus and Philo.

That is entirely convincing information, if our job is to impartially investigate the evidence rather than try to create excuses for other cultures.

Bible refers us of Jericho walls collapsing the seventh day, thanks to the magic will of the holy arc. Is that really possible? No. I do not take Bible as a valid source. And what Diodorus reported, is verified on the field? No evidence at all in loco. We just have to see how the Dido myth has changed from Punic to Latin. Elissa, sister of Pygmalion, the king of Tyre fled her brother’s kingdom after he murdered her husband. Taking her dead husband’s fortune and a band of followers, she went first to Cyprus before arriving at the coast of Tunisia. Thereafter, Elissa became know as Dido the wanderer. Declining to join the existing settlers ruled over by the local king, Iarbus, Dido and her people instead wished to found their own city. Iarbus agreed to grant them as much land as could be covered by the hide of a bull. Dido ordered the largest of their bulls to be killed and its hide cut into the thinnest possible strips. In this way, the bull’s hide was stretched all around the hill that became the initial site of the new city. The hill became known as the Byrsa, from the Greek for hide. Iarbus was not to be beaten and to gain control of the new city and its imported wealth, he attempted to force Dido to marry him. Realising that a refusal would mean war, Dido agreed. She had a large pyre built for a sacrifice. But the only offering she made was herself when she threw herself into the flames in order to save her city. While with Virgil the story changes a little bit. Virgil’s version, adopted from the Bellum Poenicum written by Naevius during the late republic, changes Dido from a heroic Queen into an obsessed woman whose thwarted love lies at the root of the enmity between two nations.
In the Roman version, Aeneas, a Trojan survivor and legendary founder the Roman race lands off the coast of Carthage after a storm. Venus leads him to Carthage where he and Dido meet. Dido makes him welcome but also falls in love with him and seduces him in a cave whilst they are hunting. She wishes Aeneas to stay with her. However, it is Aeneas’s mission to establish a new homeland in Italy and he views his liaison with Dido as transitory. Aeneas departs, leaving his lover broken hearted. As in the original myth, Dido casts herself on a pyre. However, her death is not a noble sacrifice but accompanied by a curse on the departing Trojan’s. It establishes a reason why Carthage and Rome were bitter enemies and lays the blame at the feet of a bitter, irrational Carthaginian woman.

[Hanny]

Bible refers us of Jericho walls collapsing the seventh day, thanks to the magic will of the holy arc. Is that really possible? No.

So you discount that it occured on the specified day because you dont believe the reason the author gives?.

I do not take Bible as a valid source.

You must fail a lot of exams.

The question asked is is the Bible a valid source for infant sacrifice in the Period.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I never believed they continued human sacrifice either. Just one of those rumors Rome passed around.

[Ebusitanus]

Personally I find it a bit to easy to just dismiss roman reports as warmongering propaganda. Its not like such claims (if false) would not had echo elsewhere. You would have been a laughting stock for informed contemporary readers if all was an invention. I do not think less of the Carthaginians if they did what their religion told them was correct, regardless of how horrid we find this in 2010. Rome had thousands die in the Ludii and that came also directly from funerary rites. What is next? Druids did not burn people in wickermen?

[MathiasOfAthens]

They burn their enemies, mostly, I remember reading sources on that during Claudius invasion of Britain. Druids would ride around burning savages hoping the gods would rescue them from the Romans, but the druids would more independent of the major British forces combating Rome.