>>15070224

(Please read from the start)

“Identifiable in enamel only at high magnification (microns), a NL presents as a distinct, morphologically homogeneous line devoid of cross striations (Figure 1). It reflects a stress-induced disruption of enamel deposition coincident with the transition from in- to ex-utero, which may not correspond to full-term birth. NLs are always present in deciduous teeth (Antoine et al. Reference Antoine, Hillson and Dean2009), which begin developing by the twentieth intrauterine week (Antoine et al. Reference Antoine, Hillson and Dean2009; also Ten Cate Reference Ten Cate and Cate1989). Since first permanent molar crowns (lower M1 or upper M1) mineralise late in the third trimester, their NLs lie closer to the dentino-enamel juncture (DEJ) (Antoine et al. Reference Antoine, Hillson and Dean2009). Given the periodicity of enamel deposition and the lag between a stress and a response to it, an individual must survive around 7, or even 10–15, post-uterine days for a NL to form (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010).

For NL analysis, Schwartz and Houghton sent co-authors Bondioli and Macchiarelli 50 deciduous tooth crowns from the ‘perinatal’ category (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Twenty-six crowns lacked a NL. In the 24 crowns with NLs, enamel thickness indicated survival of at least two weeks post-NL-formation. Upon comparing NL with our morphological/metrical age estimates (M) of the same individuals, M>NL in only 10% of the sample. As M typically equalled or over-estimated NL-derived ages, we concluded that M-based age estimates were reliable (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010). Taking everything into account, we concluded that: “the Carthaginian Tophet, and by extension other Tophets, were cemeteries for the remains of human prenates and infants who died from a variety of causes” (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010: 10).

When our analyses consistently identified pre- and neonates, Stager demanded return of the sample, which he sent to P. Smith (Stager Reference Stager2014). Subsequently, Smith, Stager and others have since dismissed our work through misrepresentation of it, and have also rejected our results and defended the ‘all-sacrifice’ theory through erroneous assumption and incorrect criteria. Given that these allegations and misinformation appeared in this journal, we present the reader with the relevant background, arguments and correct analytical information.”

>> Look whom they sent the samples to. LoL! Of course they are going dismiss the work and reject the results.

“A refutation?

Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011: 860–61) not only mischaracterised us (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010) as asserting that the Carthage Tophet was solely “a cemetery for the burial of aborted or stillborn infants”, but also criticised us for not accounting for tooth-crown and bone shrinkage, for estimating age primarily on the basis of an inappropriate combination of petrosal length and width measurements, and for using questionable long-bone measurements and NL analysis to estimate age. They also dismissed our analysis because the percentages of identified pre-/perinates were not the same in all cranial and pelvic-bone metric analyses. 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. (Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013) 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. We address these and other ‘bones of contention’ individually.”

• Page 1 632 –

>>15078068

(Please read from the start)

“Only sacrifice can account for individuals in the Carthage Tophet

Regardless of whether some Carthage Tophet humans were sacrificed, it does not preclude death by natural causes (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Bondioli and Macchiarelli2012): for example, spontaneous abortion, which is common enough today for perinatologists to refer to it as ‘reproductive wastage’ (Durfee Reference Durfee and Wharton1987). Furthermore, if we accept that sanitary conditions at Carthage were as poor as at contemporaneous Pompeii, Ostia and Rome (Scobie Reference Scobie1986), all Carthaginians (pregnant women included) were susceptible to cholera, dysentery, gastroenteritis, infectious hepatitis, leptospirosis, typhoid and parasitic intestinal infestations, most of which result in severe dehydration, which remains a primary cause of peri- and postnatal death (Behrman & Shiono Reference Behrman, Shiono, Fanaroff and Martin1997). Also relevant to considering infant mortality are: low birth weight (Behrman & Shiono Reference Behrman, Shiono, Fanaroff and Martin1997); severe viral infections and malaria leading to premature birth and perinatal mortality; infectious diseases (smallpox, vaccinia, listeriosis) resulting in stillbirth; and non-infectious diseases (cholestasis, hypertension, toxemia, renal disease) causing stillbirth, abortion and preterm delivery (Taylor & Pernoll Reference Taylor, Pernoll, Pernoll and Benson1987). As these are today major causes of peri- and postnatal death, they must have constituted natural—and probably more prevalent—elements of Carthaginian life. As Becker (Reference Becker, Lally and Moore2011: 24) commented in light of the high incidence of perinatal mortality in non-industrial societies and its unexpected increase in modern industrialised societies: “The last months of a pregnancy, the process of parturition, and various stresses during the months after birth provide a frightening trio of challenges that lead to [. . .] ‘infant mortality’”.

Bone shrinkage

Our age estimates (pace Smith et al. Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013) did not derive primarily from measurement of the petrosal bone and an inappropriate combination of its length and width. We did measure the petrosal, but we also measured other cranial and several pelvic bones, and compared each measurement individually to those in Fazekas and Kósa's (Reference Fazekas and Kósa1979) ageing tables. Moreover, even though these bones shrank little, if at all, when we incrementally increased our measurements to compensate for an unrealistic shrinkage of 25%, prenates were still identified. We did not measure long bones.”

>> See! They didn’t simply rely on the study of teeth to determine the age of the infants. Other bones from the body were studied and they combined the results. See how Smith & co. are playing dirty?

“Tooth-crown shrinkage

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. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013; Figure 2B). Thus, the estimates we achieved using relative states of crown formation are viable (Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli2010).”

>> We have Einstein present in the room = “others have used when comparing Carthage Tophet crowns with unburned crowns” – really smart, isn’t it? (rolling eyes).

• Page 1 633 –

>>15078078

(Please read from the start)

“Although Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013) cited Krogman (Reference Krogman and Levinson1949) as demonstrating marked heat-induced shrinkage, he actually questioned whether this occurred, as unerupted, jaw-embedded developing teeth (as most of the Carthage Tophet teeth were) are less susceptible to the effects of heat than erupted teeth, which crack and/or split (see also Krogman 1962). They also claimed (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011, Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013) that both Shipman et al. (Reference Shipman, Forster and Schoeninger1984) and Buikstra and Swegle (Reference Buikstra, Swegle, Bonnischen and Sorg1989) demonstrated heat-induced crown shrinkage. Only Shipman and colleagues cremated teeth experimentally, however, and these were erupted sheep molars, which differ from enamel-capped human teeth in having vertical plates of enamel separated by occlusally exposed fields of soft dentine. Not unexpectedly, it was not the crystalline enamel but the hydrated dentine that shrank.

Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Avishai, Greene and Stager2011) compared crown heights of specimens from the Carthage Tophet with similarly formed, unburned teeth from an unidentified sample. As the Carthage crowns were 0.6mm shorter, they increased their age estimates by around four weeks. Human populations differ markedly in their tooth dimensions (Coughlin Reference Coughlin1967; Yuen et al. Reference Yuen, So and Tang1997; Hanihara & Ishida Reference Hanihara and Ishida2005; Anfe et al. Reference Anfe, Arakaki, Nakamura and Viera2012), however, so any effect that heat might have on tooth size can be determined only by measuring the same teeth, pre- and post-cremation, as Deutsch and colleagues (Deutsch & Shapira Reference Deutsch and Shapira1987; Mayer et al. Reference Mayer, Schneider, Sydney-Zax and Deutsch1990; Sydney-Zax et al. Reference Sydney-Zax, Mayer and Deutsch1991) and Soliel et al. (Reference Soliel, Muller and Richard1958) did. These studies revealed that shrinkage is at best negligible—a fact that Soliel et al. used to identify pre- and perinates in their Carthage Tophet sample. As for Deutsch et al.’s studies, crown weight decreased as a result of loss of water and carbonates (see Figure 2A & B). (See also Smith et al. Reference Smith, Stager, Greene and Avishai2013 for incorrectly comparing measurements of cremated teeth from some, with uncremated teeth from other, studies as demonstration of shrinkage.)”

>> Smith is not even using good samples to compare the Carthaginians samples with. “Unidentified sample” = now that is either showing how unprofessional she is in her work, or this is showing how dirty she is maneuvering to “fix” the results= manipulating the tests to make it go her way.

“Correcting for their inflation of ages, it is striking that Smith and colleagues’ mortality distribution is virtually identical to ours when ‘fetal’ and ‘perinatal’ categories are combined (Figure S1 in online supplementary material (OSM)). This is consistent with present-day fetal/infant mortality profiles (Chalmers & Macfarlane Reference Chalmers, Macfarlane and Wharton1980; Taylor & Pernoll Reference Taylor, Pernoll, Pernoll and Benson1987; Saunders & Barrans Reference Saunders, Barrans, Hoppa and Fitzgerald1999): in other words, a large proportion of spontaneously aborted or stillborn fetuses (Durfee Reference Durfee and Wharton1987), and of peri- and neonates, who are at serious risk of death during the first two postnatal weeks (Chalmers & Macfarlane Reference Chalmers, Macfarlane and Wharton1980) (also see our NL estimates above).”

>> Smith & co are playin dirty.

• Page 1 634 –