>>15078084

(Please read from the start)

“Neonatal lines

Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013) claimed that heat can alter the internal structure of teeth and eliminate evidence of NLs. They also claimed that NLs may be present in permanent, but not deciduous, teeth. From these assertions, they concluded that age estimates based on NL presence/absence are unreliable.”

>> LoL! Nice joke here.

“The magnifications used by Smith et al. are insufficient to identify NLs: i.e. millimetres rather than microns (1μ = 0.001mm). Consider their case for asserting that a NL can be present in uncremated, and absent in cremated, teeth. In their fig. 3d and 3e, they present a sectioned, uncremated M1 that purports to show a NL and a Carthage Tophet M1 that supposedly lacks this feature (see Figure 2C & D here). In all cases, however, Smith et al. illustrate the always-present DEJ, which can be identified at low magnification. In Figure 2C, the DEJ is better defined in the uncremated M1 than in the Carthage Tophet M1. In Figure 2D, the DEJ of the Carthage Tophet M1 appears as expected (as it also does in the specimens in Figure 2C), while in the uncremated tooth, separation of dentine and enamel created a dark band that Smith et al. incorrectly identified as a NL. To reiterate: NLs develop not between enamel and dentine, but in enamel, and cannot be visualised in magnifications as low as millimetres.”

>> I’m saying it again, either this Smith is stupid or….she is doing this on purpose with a dirty agenda behind it. It’s so obvious she is trying to trash the work of Schwartz and supposedly debunk it and present it as incorrect, unreliable study. Why is she doing this? Because Schwartz’ work shatters the image of barbarism and cruelty of the Carthaginians projected by the MSM, Academic world and ancient writers. She’s trying to keep the ancient narrative alive despite the obvious results of Schwartz work.

“In support of their contention that deciduous teeth may lack NLs, Smith and colleagues (Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013: 1195) cite Antoine et al. (Reference Antoine, Hillson and Dean2009) as being able to “locate this line in only one of five teeth they examined”. Antoine et al. (Reference Antoine, Hillson and Dean2009: 49) actually wrote that NLs can always be identified in deciduous crowns, which begin to form months before birth, but may be difficult to locate in the less fully developed M1 crowns of pre-, peri- and neonates because they lie close to the DEJ. This accounts for their being able to identify a NL in only one of the five permanent molars that they analysed (a M1 vs 3 M1s and 1 M1). As we only scrutinised deciduous teeth for NLs, we stand by our results—26 of 50 crowns lacked a NL—which confirms the presence of some number of prenates.”

>> See how Smith is nitpicking all the time, trying to find fault where there is none, twisting things and presenting falsehoods?

• Page 1 635 –

>>15083122

(Please read from the start)

"Do other studies support the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory?

Richard (Reference Richard1961) analysed the contents of 42 urns from the Carthage Tophet together with remains from 138 urns from the Hadrumentum Tophet. From long-bone measurements representing 41 individuals, he identified 5 (12.2%) prenates (1 of 7.5 fetal months, and 4 of 8–9 fetal months), 20 (48.8%) perinates, and 16 (39%) postnates (9 of ≤1 month, 3 of 1–3 months, and 4 of 2–3 years). Conservatively, he suggested 1 prenate, 33 perinates and 7 postnates. Using developing teeth representing 147 humans, Richard identified 16 prenates (10.9%), 118 perinates (80.3%) and 13 postnates (8.8%; 6 of a few months of age, 7 of 3–6 years). His conservative estimate was 13 postnates, from 2–16 prenates, and the rest as perinates. Recognising that his results were consistent with expected mortality, Richard tentatively suggested that 5% were prenatal, 75% perinatal and 20% postnatal (pace Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013). As 26 teeth that we classified as ‘perinatal’ lacked a NL, Richard's perinatal category probably included prenates.

Based on a small number of bones from 16 Carthage Tophet urns, Gejvall (Reference Gejvall1949) suggested that 1 human was neonatal to 3 months of age, 7 were greater than 3 months, and 3 were 3–4 postnatal months. Given Gejvall's small sample, his conclusions are not inconsistent with ours (pace Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013).

Additionally, Muller et al. (Reference Muller, Depreux, Muller and Fontaine1952) analysed the contents of 44 Carthage Tophet urns and those of 31 urns from the Sousse Tophet. They identified humans in 32 urns, animals in 2 urns and commingled human/animal remains in 38 urns. They determined age using sphenoid development/coalescence, long-bone length, Haversian canal configuration and semicircular canal orientation: 65 individuals (around 87% of the sample) were near birth, 1 of 21 days, 2 of 30 postnatal days, and the rest of 2–3 postnatal months. Some of the 65 individuals were probably prenatal.

>> See how many pre-natals there are and how soon most of the infants died after birth? This is very important. And this is consistent with the results of Schwartz work. There are more than one study/analysis that are pointing in the same direction. But the Jew along with the Bloodlines are still weighing on the scales and keep on peddling, pushing the child sacrficie narrative despite many tests showing this is not correct. This is showing there was something wrong with the births in Carthage. We can start to see a pattern emerge about a birth anomality in Carthage and the other colonies where such burials were found. But let’s just keep on insisting it’s human sacrfice just to please the Jews. We certainly don’t want to uncover their bad intentions, their deception and their lies.

“Recently, Xella (Reference Xella2009) defended the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory via his ‘new’ approach, which relied solely on classical Greek and Roman writings. Subsequently, Xella and colleagues (Xella 2010; Quinn Reference Quinn and Gruen2011; Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013) included the interpretations of archaeologists, historians and epigraphers, which, they concluded, tell the same story: Tophets were cemeteries for sacrificed children. Smith et al.’s claims fit their interpretation. They (Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013) rejected our results on the grounds that analyses by Docter et al. (Reference Docter, Smits, Hakbijl, Stuijts and van der Plicht2003), Melchiorri (Reference Melchiorri2010) and Ciasca et al. (Reference Ciasca, Di Salvo, Castellino and Di Patti1996) contradicted ours.”

>> Look what they are relying on here! LoL! And they think this is credible.

• Page 1 636 –

>>15083139

(Please read from the start)

“Docter et al. studied 6 Carthage Tophet urns. Using tooth and skeletal development, they identified 3 newborns in 1 urn, 2 newborns in each of 2 urns, 1 newborn in each of 2 urns, and one 6–9-year-old child in 1 urn. Given our results, it is probable that 3 complete individuals were not represented in that first urn, and that ‘newborn’ includes prenates.

Melchiorri analysed 72 Sulci Tophet (Sardinia) urns, and identified 52 humans, ranging in age from prenatal to 4–5 years. Of the 30 classified as neonatal, some were probably prenatal.

From the Motya Tophet, Ciasca et al. (Reference Ciasca, Di Salvo, Castellino and Di Patti1996) identified human remains in 132 urns, and comingled human and animal remains in 303 urns. They reported that the humans ranged in age from birth (the majority) to 6 months. For 112 of these individuals, they determined that 95 (84.8%) were neonates, 8 were 1 month of age, 4 were 2 months, 1 was 2–3 months, 3 were 4 months, and 1 was 6 months of age. ‘Neontatal’ undoubtedly included prenates.”

>> The results are consistent even in the other colonies. This is good.

“Animal remains

“Another defence of the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory is that as all Carthage Tophet animals must have been sacrificed, all humans must also have been sacrificed (see references in Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013; see also Xella 2010; Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013).”

>> This is the most idiotic argument I’ve ever heard in my entire life. So if I light a candle on the grave of a relative of mine, does this also mean that I’ve practiced human sacrifice? If in ancient time it was custom to present an animal offering for the soul of the deceased, is that a bad thing? Or does it show that the living relative of the dead is worried what happens to the soul and spirit of the deceased? Why do these “experts” always take the worst explanation and don’t look at it as a general practice done by everyone in old times? Why always see things from this narrow perspective?

“We identified lamb or kid alone in some urns, and lamb or kid, and infrequently bird and fish, commingled with human bones in others (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Never, however, was there enough bone to suggest the interment of an entire animal (see Table S1 in OSM). This pattern is consistent with then contemporaneous practice: although an animal may have been killed sacrificially, only part of it (that was less desirable for eating) was burned as an offering to the gods; the rest was consumed (Detienne Reference Detienne, Detienne and Vernant1989). Given the skewed representation of animal skeletal elements, it appears that the circumstances leading to their presence in the Carthage Tophet differed from those involving humans.”

• Page 1 637 –