>>15019113

(Please read from the start)

“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).”

>> “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.”

“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.”

• Page 1 600 –

>>15026061

(Please read from the start)

“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].”

>> It could be all the above deceases and illnesses. And as said in the paragraph, this was the same case in other Cities of the time, like in Pompeii for example. Here, the study team is suggesting a cocktail of deceases, but what if it was only ONE. And this ONE decease lasted for centuries because it was passed on from the older generation to the newer one. Here, Schwartz is suggesting that some, not all of the buried infants, were “probably” sacrificed, while others died “naturally” = as in from deceases or illnesses. I don’t think it was “some”…I think it was ALL of the infants whom died naturally.

“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.”

>> As I just said in the previous comments, I don’t think SOME infants died naturally while others were sacrificed. I think all died naturally and I will be talking about this. I also think there is ONE cause of death = one decease, and not a cocktail as suggested here. Yes, it’s very possible as Schwartz & co suggested, but there is a possibility no one thought of before because no one knew it existed, so no one went looking for it. And it COULD explain everything and prove ALL infants died naturally = of course medical analysis is required.

• Page 1 601 –

>>15026066

Here is an article from a different “study”: https://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html

“Child Sacrifice: Children of Phoenician Punic Carthage Where Not Sacrificed to the Gods

Still Born Fetuses in Urns & the Perpetuated Lie of Diodoro Siculo

Translated from Italian by kind courtesy of Pasquale Mereu, Karalis, Sardinia, Italy

From IGN Italy Global Nation (May 2007)

Excavations in Zama, Tunis, reveal that the practice of sacrificing children by the Phoenicians is a myth. The myth was born in the Greco-Roman age with Diodoro Siculo. He made a claim that in 310 B.C. the Carthaginians remembered that they did not honor their god Chronos with the annual sacrifice of children of noble families. Because of that, in few days, they slaughtered two hundred children. Recent archaeological discoveries have disavowed this macabre religious tradition, demonstrating that among Phoenicians there is no trace of human sacrifices. This appears in an interview, in the new issue of the Italian review: "Archeologia Viva," with professor Piero Bartoloni, Head of the Department of Phoenician-Punic Archaeology at Universita' di Sassari, Italy, and a favorite student of famous archaeologist Sabatino Moscati. He undertook a major excavation campaign in Zama, Tunisia, that is linked to the fall of Carthage after the battle of Zama in 202 B.C. The battle ended the second Punic war. He declares that, "In ancient times, for every ten children that were born, seven died within the first year and out of the remained three, only one became an adult. Now I ask: is it reasonable that, with such a high level of infant mortality, these people killed their own children?” Ten necropolises are the resting places of children. Actually it has been discovered Bartoloni reveals that the greater part of approximately 6,000 children urns found in Carthage, contain bones of fetuses, therefore of still born babies. The little older children remain a problem. They most probably passed away before their initiation, a ceremony that corresponds to Catholic baptism. Flames in some way were involved, because the same initiation included the "passage of fire” of the child, accompanied by its godfather. They jumped on burning coals, as written in the Bible, the Book of the Kings.”

>> The next section is in Italian, so I’m going to put the text as it is first, then add the translation right under it.

“Curriculum Vitae et Studiorum di Piero Bartoloni (in Italian)

Piero Bartoloni si è laureato in Lettere presso linsegnamento di Filologia Semitica, relatore Sabatino Moscati, con una tesi sullinsediamento di Monte Sirai (Carbonia-Cagliari), conseguendo la votazione di 110 e lode.

Piero Bartoloni è stato Dirigente di Ricerca del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche presso lIstituto per la Civiltà fenicia e punica, del quale è stato Direttore dal 1997 al 2002. Attualmente è Professore Straordinario di Archeologia fenicio-punica presso lUniversità di Sassari. Inoltre, dal 1990 al 1994 è stato Professore di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente e dal 1994 al 2000 di Archeologia fenicio-punica nell`Università di Urbino.”

• Page 1 602 –

>>15026069

(Please read from the start)

“Piero Bartoloni dal 1962 ha effettuato missioni archeologiche, prospezioni terrestri e subacquee e viaggi di studio in Italia, in Europa, in Africa e nel Nord-America. Attualmente, per conto del Dipartimento di Storia dellUniversità di Sassari, dellIstituto di Studi sulle Civiltà italiche e del Mediterraneo antico del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, dirige gli scavi archeologici a Zama Regia (Siliana- Tunisia) e, in collaborazione con la Soprintendenza Archeologica per le Province di Cagliari e Oristano, a Sulcis e a Monte Sirai (Cagliari).

Piero Bartoloni è Coordinatore dellXI Dottorato "Il Mediterraneo in età classica. Storia e culture", è Membro del Comitato Nazionale per gli Studi e le Ricerche sulla Civiltà fenicia e punica del Ministro per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali e Membro dellIstituto Italiano per lAfrica e lOriente. Piero Bartoloni è Direttore del Museo Archeologico Comunale "Ferruccio Barreca" di Sant`Antioco (Cagliari).

Piero Bartoloni è autore di circa duecento (two hundreds) pubblicazioni a carattere scientifico, tra le quali dieci libri.”

“Curriculum Vitae et Studiorum by Piero Bartoloni (in Italian)

Piero Bartoloni graduated in Literature from the teaching of Semitic Philology, supervisor Sabatino Moscati, with a thesis on the settlement of Monte Sirai (Carbonia-Cagliari), obtaining the mark of 110 and honors.

Piero Bartoloni was Research Director of the National Research Council at the Institute for Phoenician and Punic Civilization, of which he was Director from 1997 to 2002. He is currently Extraordinary Professor of Phoenician-Punic Archeology at the University of Sassari. Furthermore, from 1990 to 1994 he was Professor of Archeology of the Near East and from 1994 to 2000 of Phoenician-Punic Archeology at the University of Urbino.

Piero Bartoloni since 1962 has carried out archaeological missions, land and underwater prospecting and study trips to Italy, Europe, Africa and North America. Currently, on behalf of the Department of History of the University of Sassari, of the Institute of Studies on Italic and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations of the National Research Council, he directs the archaeological excavations in Zama Regia (Siliana-Tunisia) and, in collaboration with the Archaeological Superintendence for the Provinces of Cagliari and Oristano, in Sulcis and Monte Sirai (Cagliari).

Piero Bartoloni is Coordinator of the XI Doctorate "The Mediterranean in the classical age. History and cultures", is a member of the National Committee for Studies and Research on Phoenician and Punic Civilization of the Minister for Cultural and Environmental Heritage and a member of the Italian Institute for Africa and the East. Piero Bartoloni is Director of the "Ferruccio Barreca" Municipal Archaeological Museum of Sant`Antioco (Cagliari).

Piero Bartoloni is the author of about two hundred (two hundreds) scientific publications, including ten books.”

>> That’s an honest introduction to Bartoloni.

• Page 1 603 –

>>15026073

(Please read from the start)

“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 Sacrifice

The Tophet was the final resting place for the still- born and for children who died in early infancy.

M'hamed Hassine 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.”

>> Please go back anons and re-read what was written about the Carthaginians wars in Sicily. Whom was fighting whom? Check out Epirus’ role in all of this, then, if you don’t remember, go check out again whom really were the royals of Epirus. Do you see the invisible connection?

“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.”

>> Good observation. Very logical. Like it or not, he’s got a point here.

“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.”

• Page 1 604 –

>>15026076

(Please read from the start)

“*For more information on the meaning of the word "Moloch," see Lawrence E. Stager and Samuel R. Wolff, "Child Sacrifice at Carthage‹Religious Rite or Population Control? Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February 1984. (This issue is out of print. To order a photocopy of this article, call us at 1-800-221-4644.).

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.”

>> Another good observation.

“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?”

>> Exactly.

“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.”

>> Absolutely correct. So ask yourselves anons: what are the parents begging/asking the gods for? Now connect it to the mutated symbol of the Beam = what you call nowadays Caduceus. If you are a parent, and your child is stillborn, what would you be wishing for that deceased child of yours? Wouldn’t you be wishing for the infant to be in Heaven or find his/her way to Heaven? And not get lost during the trip? If so, whom would you ask to make sure the child got that blessing and reached Heaven? You ask a deity, right? You usually ask the patron deities of a City-State back in the days, regardless of which deity it is. I’m not saying Tanit is good, I’ve already declared this needs a re-evaluation. It’s not something I can do in a few hours or a month, this needs time because it’s deep. So for now I’m going to work on this one brick at a time. Think about what I’m saying anons.

• Page 1 605 –

>>15026081

(Please read from the start)

“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.”

>> I totally disagree. It was a necropolis = a burial ground. And yes, some rituals used to take place, like burial rituals, just like we have burial, wedding, first communion rites in Church. So there were different types of rituals, all depending on the situation. In this case, it was a burial type of ritual and the dead infant were cremated. Why cremation? I don’t know for sure, but….there is a high chance it’s mostly due to the genre of the remains = the dead infants were not totally formed for some of them, and some were not even alive (= stillborn) or died during the birth process. In these specific cases, some were not complete physically = not fully formed. Others had no breath of life within them = not fully alive.

“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.”

>> Remember Epirus? Remember how the Carthaginians used to “mysteriously” loose against their enemies in the most critical time ever? Infiltration not invasion. Do not forget there was also a Jewish community there as well as the Greek one.

Carthage was not the only Phoenician colony whom had a child burial where infants were buried. There are other sites, mostly in Sardinia and Sicily. The story of Arishat, LADY of Eryx, should be examined a bit further than the obvious, mostly to see if there was a migration or a political marriage, not just with her generation, but generation before her as well. As in her parents and her grandparents; because what killed all of these infants was an illness transferred from one generation to the next; that’s why we got so many of them = dead infants = and it explains why the deaths stretched for centuries. So it’s possible that Arishat, lady of Eryx, was making an offering to someone related to her in that cemetery. Or she had a miscarriage herself and was emotionally moved when she saw the burial in Carthage. Or it could be any other reason. This needs further digging.

“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.”

>> This could be like “God, I promise to stop drinking if you could guide my child to Heaven and watch over him/her during the trip” or “God, I promise to sacrifice a rooster each year for you if you guide the soul and the spirit of my child to Heaven”, etc. This is how I understand the inscriptions to be. Not as explained by the chorus of the Main Stream History and the anti-Phoenician academic mafia.

“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.”

• Page 1 606 –

>>15026093

(Please read from the start)

>> Nothing evil or horrible in this type of offering. It used to take place all over the world and by everyone. And there is nothing wrong in making an animal offering for the soul of the deceased infant to rest in peace or to thank the deity for guiding it to Heaven or for protecting the infant’s spirit in the afterlife. Till this day, we do hold similar practices in all the religions of the world, including the practice of ancestor worshiping or ancestor praying. Or in other places, there are prayers and offerings for the soul of the deceased family member so it could rest in peace and not hold grudges towards the living relatives because it was forgotten or because of neglect. It takes various forms and it’s a bit different from one place to the other, but the core idea behind them all is the same; like what they do in Mexico or in Japan for examples.

“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?”

>> Good question.

“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.”

>> But if the Punics or the Phoenicians did the same….they are sacrificing children….because???? the Jews and their nobility = the Bloodlines said so. See how it works? And this is the only thing (((they))) made the Phoenicians famous for. Amazing how much publicity a LIE and SLANDER got….just to brainwash the public and ruin the public image of the Phoenician. Whom controls the media and the printing houses? Whom controls the academic world? Whom controls the medical research facilities? Whom is paying all the supposed “experts”? And whom is crushing those whom don’t fall in line with (((their))) narrative? Whom is the entity standing behind that curtain, manipulating every single information there is about the Phoenicians? Whom is controlling everything?

“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.”

>> This is a possible explanation to SOME of the inscriptions but not ALL of them. Not all parents had the same wish and this is normal, because we are not the same person all of us. Yes, all parents wish for the wellbeing of their children, but if some parents lost their children due to illness, then they hope to have healthy children next time. And this even happens nowadays.

“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.”

• Page 1 607 –