Cemetery or sacrifice? Infant burials at the Carthage Tophet

Abstract

The recent article on the Carthage Tophet infants by Schwartz et al. (2012) takes issue with our paper (Smith et al. 2011) that claims the Carthaginians practiced infant sacrifice. Both studies were carried out on the same sample of cremated infant remains excavated by the ASOR Punic project between 1975 and 1980 (Stager 1982). We examined the contents of 334 urns while Schwartz et al. (2012) examined the same sample plus an additional fourteen urns (N = 348). We differed, however, in our conclusions regarding the age distribution of the infants and the extent to which it supported or refuted claims that Tophet infants were sacrificed. This note explains why we think that Schwartz et al. (2012) erred in their age assessments and introduces additional evidence to show that the age distribution of the Tophet infants supports our contention of infant sacrifice.

Two tales of one city: data, inference and Carthaginian infant sacrifice

“…Although an 'all-sacrifice' conception of Tophets was not universally accepted (Harden 1927;Soliel et al 1958;Richard 1961), this interpretation has garnered a following that seeks support from several sources: Graeco-Roman tales by Diodorus and others; the reinterpretation of grave-marker inscriptions as parental vows to sacrifice their offspring to Ba'al and Tanit; the argument that animals were sacrificed and therefore humans were too; the interpretation of images on a particular stele as representing a priest carrying a sacrificial infant; and claims that only sacrifice warranted the use of scarce plant resources for pyres (see references in Smith et al 2011Smith et al , 2013also Xella 2010;Quinn 2011;Xella et al 2013;Stager 2014).…”

“…Nevertheless, proponents of an 'all-sacrifice' interpretation reject any alternatives, reiterating that Graeco-Roman depictions of specific events actually reflect a widespread Carthaginian practice; that their interpretations of the stele are correct; and that the presence at other Tophets of the cremated remains of humans who 'must' have been sacrificed also means that the Carthage Tophet humans were sacrificed (Smith et al 2011(Smith et al , 2013also Xella 2010;Quinn 2011;Xella et al 2013;Stager 2014). Furthermore, they denounce alternative theories as 'revisionist' (Lancel 1995;Quinn 2011;Stager 2014).…”

“…As most bioarchaeologists know, however, multiple criteria will not yield exactly the same estimate, but, together, they provide a more realistic approximation of age than using one criterion. Smith et al (2013) subsequently reiterated these objections and defended their age estimates based on tooth-crown height corrected for purported shrinkage, which identified most individuals as one to two postnatal months of age. From this, they asserted that the Carthage humans were alive and available for sacrifice.…”

“…Even if cremated teeth shrink, their morphology and relative states of development do not change-a fact that others have used when comparing Carthage Tophet crowns with unburned crowns (e.g. Smith et al 2011Smith et al , 2013; Figure 2B). Thus, the estimates we achieved using relative states of crown formation are viable (Schwartz et al 2010).…”

New Book Chronicle

“…Inevitably, the book must deal with the question of child sacrifice at the Tophet, a debate that has played out in the pages of Antiquity (Smith et al 2011(Smith et al , 2013Schwartz et al 2012;Xella et al 2013). In this volume, the issue is carefully presented but attention is sensibly redirected towards the broader context.…”