>>15063220

(Please read from the start)

“Now in the same issue as Quinn's research, Antiquity is publishing a new paper on the same bones, insisting that the earlier study got the science of burnt infant bones wrong, and therefore greatly overestimated the number who died before birth rather than being murdered in infancy.”

>> This is what the Bloodlines excel in = they bring their own team of scientists and experts and provide bogus results just to counter and derail the correct results. You don’t believe me, just take a look what they did with the plandemic. Now imagine if this was done for other issues as well, like the medical results = the tests on the Carthaginian infant burial remains. There is one way to put an end to all of this = the alliance can hopefully clear all of this out by bringing out the true, authentic results.

“Quinn said many of her academic colleagues were appalled by her conclusions.

"The feeling that some ultimate taboo is being broken is very strong. It was striking how often colleagues, when they asked what I was working on, reacted in horror and said, 'Oh no, that's simply not possible, you must have got it wrong.'"

"We like to think that we're quite close to the ancient world, that they were really just like us – the truth is, I'm afraid, that they really weren't."

>> I agree with the colleagues = you got it terribly wrong.

More reading of the same anons. Sorry, but I gotta cover it from all sides:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/two-tales-of-one-city-data-inference-and-carthaginian-infant-sacrifice/5006E240CB75A1E324B3230F6DA17389

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 April 2017

Recent issues of Antiquity have seen much discussion on the topic of Carthaginian infant sacrifice: was it a Graeco-Roman fiction or did it really happen? There are strongly held opinions on both sides of the argument, with much resting on the age profile of the children interred at the cemetery known as the Carthage Tophet. Here, the authors respond to claims by Smith et al. (2011, 2013) that their ageing of the infants and children was incorrect, and so also by extension was their interpretation that not all interments at the Tophet were the result of sacrifice.

Introduction

In his second major work, Salammbô, Flaubert (Reference Flaubert1862) portrayed the Carthaginians as a heartless people who sacrificed their children to gain favour with their gods Tanit and Ba'al Hammon. In this fictional account, a priest places these innocents—tied hand and foot, and cloaked to mask the horror ahead—first individually, and then en masse, in the hands of a huge brass statue of Ba'al, whose arms are then raised until the bodies fall into a pyre between its legs. Throughout, musicians play loudly to smother the wails of the victims. Flaubert's critics chastised him for embracing Graeco-Roman tales of rampant Carthaginian infant sacrifice too literally (Gras et al. Reference Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor1991).”

• Page 1 628 –

>>15070192

(Please read from the start)

“Flaubert's scenario preceded, by 59 years, the first interpretation of urns bearing the burnt remains of humans and animals from a distinct cemetery (the ‘Tophet’) at the Carthaginian city of Motya (Motzia), Sicily, as evidence of sacrifice (Whitaker Reference Whitaker1921), which Poinssot (Poinssot & Lantier Reference Poinssot and Lantier1923) then applied to the Carthage Tophet.

Prominent French scholars rejected Whitaker's claim, which they saw as derivative of Flaubert and his reliance on what they considered to be inaccurate Graeco-Roman descriptions of Carthaginian infant sacrifice (Gras et al. Reference Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor1991). As Saumange wrote in 1922 (translated and quoted in Gras et al. Reference Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor1991: 151):

The imagination of the public, haunted by Flaubert's memory, has promptly dramatized the discovery: these children [. . .] are the victims of cruel holocausts which Carthage offered to Moloch. This is an imprudent and grave step to take lightly. Imprudent because it is important to know the excavation perfectly and in all details before advancing such a thing even hypothetically. Grave because one compromises the rehabilitation which the religious reputation of Carthage has benefited from among a good number of our best historians.

May we be permitted to ask ourselves whether the object of the wish was not simply to erect the image of the [. . .] god himself, and whether the presence of ashes of children could not have been intended to render the place of the betyl [sacred stone] forever untouchable, by burying bones.

In the end, however, Poinssot and Lantier (Reference Poinssot and Lantier1923) succeeded in suppressing interpretations of Tophets that argued against sacrifice as the sole cause for the presence of human remains in the Carthage Tophet and others.

Although an ‘all-sacrifice’ conception of Tophets was not universally accepted (Harden Reference Harden1927; Soliel et al. Reference Soliel, Muller and Richard1958; Richard Reference Richard1961), 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. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013; also Xella 2010; Quinn Reference Quinn and Gruen2011; Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013; Stager Reference Stager2014).”

>> Now this sums up pretty good the arguments used by the prosecutors. I like most the one saying: if the Carthaginians sacrificed animals, then they must have sacrificed children too. LoL! Abraham sacrificed an animal – mentioned in the Bible, so is this an indicator that he also sacrificed children or just humans in a general perspective? Every single old civilization/culture sacrificed animals, does this mean they ALL also sacrificed humans? (((They))) think (((they))) can easily fool us with empty arguments of the sort. Even till this day the Jews still have this weird chicken customary atonement ritual practiced on the eve of Yom Kippur. I’m putting a picture with this page about the Jewish ritual and I’m putting a link if anons are interested in reading more about this ritual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapparot

• Page 1 629 –

>>15070199

(Please read from the start)

“There is also significant support for a ‘not-all-sacrifice’ hypothesis, which does not rule out sacrifice, but takes into consideration other factors (see references in Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010, Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Bondioli and Macchiarelli2012): Tophets lie outside city limits and house the remains of prenatal, neonatal and young postnatal humans, which are absent from the main cemeteries in city centres; only Tophet burials are cremations; and the age range of humans buried at Tophets is consistent with natural causes of death. As for the ‘seminal’ stele (see Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011: fig. 1d), the fully outlined, erect adult figure (with ear, open eye, upright shoulders, upraised right arm with forward-facing hand, distinct manual digits and a bent right leg, well forward of the left leg) contrasts with the minimally outlined small individual that it holds (with down-turned, featureless head, torso, slumped shoulder and a curved line hinting at a limp, handless left arm). Observed without preconception, the adult holds an inanimate (deceased, perhaps cloaked) infant.”

>> I already talked about this stele, please check it out again starting page 1 566.

“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. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013; also Xella 2010; Quinn Reference Quinn and Gruen2011; Xella et al. Reference Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and van Dommelen2013; Stager Reference Stager2014). Furthermore, they denounce alternative theories as ‘revisionist’ (Lancel Reference Lancel1995; Quinn Reference Quinn and Gruen2011; Stager Reference Stager2014).

Prior osteological analyses of Carthage Tophet urn contents

In 1922 and then 1923, Graeco-Roman accounts of infant sacrifice at Carthage seemed validated when de Prorok and colleagues, and Poinssot and Lantier, respectively, discovered urns at the Carthage Tophet containing burnt bones, most of which were identified as belonging to human infants or children (Stager & Wolff Reference Stager and Wolff1984).

Although Kelsey (Reference Kelsey1926) assumed that most of the Carthage Tophet urns he excavated (more than 1000) contained human remains, neither he nor his successor Harden (Reference Harden1927) claimed that the Carthaginians engaged in rampant, sanctioned infant sacrifice. Between 1934 and 1936, Chabot and Lapeyre unearthed more than 1000 urns at the Tophet, most of which they assumed to contain the remains of either one or two human infants and/or children, or a young human and some animal remains (Lapeyre & Pellegrin Reference Lapeyre and Pellegrin1942).

After Charles-Picard and Cintas (Charles-Picard Reference Charles-Picard1945) excavated the Carthage Tophet, they gave forensic expert Richard (Reference Richard1961) the contents of 42 urns. Upon combining these remains with those from 138 urns from the Hadrumentum Tophet, Richard identified one or more humans in 88 urns, human and lamb in 59, and lamb in 29.”

• Page 1 630 –

>>15070207

(Please read from the start)

“What the bones tell us

In 1976, L.E. Stager, director of the team excavating the Tophet, invited one of the authors here (Schwartz) to oversee both the on-site processing and preliminary assessment, and the subsequent detailed laboratory analysis, of the contents of 348 urns from the Carthage Tophet (dated to around the early eighth century to 146 BC) (Schwartz Reference Schwartz1993). Using the accepted MNI approach (minimum number of individuals as reflected in the number of the same tooth or skeletal element; Hesse & Wapnish Reference Hesse and Wapnish1985), Schwartz and Houghton documented evidence of 540 humans. Yet only urns with a MNI of one or two housed sufficient skeletal material to conclude that entire individuals were represented (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). When an urn's MNI indicated three or more individuals, there was insufficient skeletal material to argue for that number of entire individuals (e.g. there could be three incompletely represented individuals, or one or two skeletally well-represented individuals and only a few elements from other individuals).

As no single criterion can accurately assess age at death—nor in determining sex (Schwartz 2007)—Schwartz and Houghton used the standard multifactorial (multi-morphological/metric) approach (Fazekas & Kósa Reference Fazekas and Kósa1979; Lovejoy et al. Reference Lovejoy, Meindl, Mensforth and Barton1985; Schwartz 2007). Specifically, we (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010) based estimates of age at death on: the state of crown and root formation (teeth being the most frequently preserved and analysable elements); age-related changes in basisphenoids and petrosals; and measurements of petrosals, lateral occipital parts, basiocciputs, pubes and ischia, which shrink minimally, if at all, when cremated (Krogman Reference Krogman and Levinson1949). Through numerous re-analyses, we refined the percentages of individuals in each age category.”

>> They didn’t just rely on the teeth. If you had properly read what they wrote, then you would have known they also worked on other bones = parts of the body.

“From accepted age-estimation criteria using tooth and cranial-bone formation, we concluded that pre-/peri-/neonates together constituted ≥50% of the sample (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Ages based on basicranial- and pelvic-bone measurements were determined by comparison with Fazekas and Kósa's (Reference Fazekas and Kósa1979) measurements of these bones in individuals of known age. We sought to avoid the criticism that cremated bones may have shrunk by incrementally increasing each linear measurement to allow for the possibility of 25% shrinkage, well beyond the shrinkage recorded for experimentally cremated human or animal remains (see references in Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Even at 25% shrinkage, each measurement classified some number of individuals as ‘prenatal’.

From these ageing criteria, we concluded that 24% were prenatal, 15% peri-/neonatal, and 17% less than 1 month of age. We tested these results via neonatal line (NL) analysis.”

>> These findings fit perfectly with the cause of death I’ve discovered after coming to this board.

• Page 1 631 –