Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Feb 17;5(2):e9177.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009177.

Skeletal remains from Punic Carthage do not support systematic sacrifice of infants

Affiliations

Skeletal remains from Punic Carthage do not support systematic sacrifice of infants

Jeffrey H Schwartz et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Two types of cemeteries occur at Punic Carthage and other Carthaginian settlements: one centrally situated housing the remains of older children through adults, and another at the periphery of the settlement (the "Tophet") yielding small urns containing the cremated skeletal remains of very young animals and humans, sometimes comingled. Although the absence of the youngest humans at the primary cemeteries is unusual and worthy of discussion, debate has focused on the significance of Tophets, especially at Carthage, as burial grounds for the young. One interpretation, based on two supposed eye-witness reports of large-scale Carthaginian infant sacrifice [Kleitarchos (3(rd) c. BCE) and Diodorus Siculus (1(st) c. BCE)], a particular translation of inscriptions on some burial monuments, and the argument that if the animals had been sacrificed so too were the humans, is that Tophets represent burial grounds reserved for sacrificial victims. An alternative hypothesis acknowledges that while the Carthaginians may have occasionally sacrificed humans, as did their contemporaries, the extreme youth of Tophet individuals suggests these cemeteries were not only for the sacrificed, but also for the very young, however they died. Here we present the first rigorous analysis of the largest sample of cremated human skeletal remains (348 burial urns, N = 540 individuals) from the Carthaginian Tophet based on tooth formation, enamel histology, cranial and postcranial metrics, and the potential effects of heat-induced bone shrinkage. Most of the sample fell within the period prenatal to 5-to-6 postnatal months, with a significant presence of prenates. Rather than indicating sacrifice as the agent of death, this age distribution is consistent with modern-day data on perinatal mortality, which at Carthage would also have been exacerbated by numerous diseases common in other major cities, such as Rome and Pompeii. Our diverse approaches to analyzing the cremated human remains from Carthage strongly support the conclusion that Tophets were cemeteries for those who died shortly before or after birth, regardless of the cause.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Location of Carthage and excavation of, including objects associated with, the Tophet.
A: Map of Western Mediterranean showing location and landmarks of Carthage. B: In order to excavate the Tophet, water had to be continually pumped out of the site (arrows point to urns). C: Broken urn revealing calcined bones and sediment that had seeped in as the water table rose. D: Stelae with different amounts of detail (e.g. one bears an image of an urn and another an inscription).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Presence versus absence of neonatal line (NL).
A: Longitudinal/buccolingual thin-section of a human upper deciduous central incisor (Urn no. 5817) with a 9.7 µm-thick NL on the buccal (right) side, close to the external enamel margin; the relatively thin postnatal enamel and the distance of the NL from the tooth apex (5.222,5 µm) suggest that the individual survived postpartum at least 10 and perhaps as many as 15 days. B: Close-up of NL (Urn no. 5817). C: Longitudinal/buccolingual thin-section of a human upper deciduous central incisor (Urn no. 6003) lacking an NL. D: Close-up of thin-section of a human upper deciduous central incisor lacking NL (Urn no. 5880; arrows point to Retzius lines). Scale  = 30 µm.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of variably burned bone, female vs male ilia, and duplicate skeletal elements.
A: From a single urn, the calcined remains of the remains of a single individual (as reflected in the diversity and non-duplication of preserved skeletal elements). B: Reassociated, partially calcined upper and barely burned middle parts of a right humerus to illustrate the possible degree of fragmentation, dissociation, and consequent disparate crematory fates of parts of the same bone. C: Differentially charred cervical vertebrae still in anatomical position representing one of various indications of incomplete cremation. D: Various pelvic ilia with intact greater sciatic notches (indicated by arrows), whose width (from most to least obtuse) suggests classification as hyperfeminine (upper left), feminine (upper right), hypermasculine (lower left), and masculine (lower right). E: Two left (left) and four right unfused petrosal bones; a straightforward analysis of MNI may suggest the presence of four individuals, but detailed analysis of the urn contents that yielded these petrosals does not provide evidence of four complete individuals in the same urn. (Scales in mm.)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Plots of ages-at-death determined by actual (maximum) and incrementally increased size of skeletal elements sufficiently preserved for accurate measurement.
A: Hypophyseal fossa length. B: Hypophyseal fossa width. C: Petrosal length. D: Petrosal width. E: Pars basilaris length. F: Pars basilaris width. G: Ischium length. H: Ischium height. I: Pubis length. In the graph, the same bones are compared to data from Fazekas and Kósa and also increased by 5, 10 and 25%. The horizontal line in each represents birth.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Distribution of Ages-at-Death Based on Analysis of Human Remains, Carthaginian Tophet.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brown S. Sheffield: JSOT Press; 1991. Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context.
    1. Harden D. New York: Frederick A. Praeger; 1963. The Phoenicians.
    1. Mosca PG. Cambridge, MA: Harvard; 1975. Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion.
    1. Stager LE, Greene JA. Child sacrifice: yes, children of Phoenician/Punic Carthage were sacrificed to the gods. 2007. pp. 2–3. http://phoeniciaorg/childsacrificehtml.
    1. Stager LE, Wolf SR. Child sacrifice at Carthage: Religious rite or population control. Biblical Archaeology Review. 1984;10:31–51.

Publication types