10.13125/caster/5532
application/pdf
2532-1110
5532
en
Nathan L. Pilkington
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche
Colonie fenicie
Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs: Revisiting the Tophet Debate though a Demographic Lens
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster
8
Saggi e studi
2023-10-23
2023-02-26
2023-02-22
2023-10-23
1
Nathan L. Pilkington
2023/10/23
10.13125/caster/5532
2532-1110
Colonie fenicie
Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs: Revisiting the Tophet Debate though a Demographic Lens
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/article/download/5532/5691
8
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche, 8 (2023)                      Sezione: Saggi e Studi
Rivista della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Cartagine    Articolo presentato il 23/02/2023
http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/index                 Accettato in data 17/07/2023
issn 2532-1110; doi: 10.13125/caster/5532                  Pubblicato in data 23/10/2023




                                                                                                  CaSteR, 8 (2023)




Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs:
Revisiting the Tophet Debate though a Demographic Lens
Nathan L. Pilkington
University of North Carolina - Wilmington, USA
mail: pilkingtonn@uncw.edu




    In the late 9th- 7th centuries BCE, Near Eastern colonists established new foundations
throughout the Mediterranean. At certain locations in the central Mediterranean, the sett-
lers, termed Phoenicians by the Greeks, constructed a burial ground for cremated infants
and children shortly after the start of their new colonies, generally in the 8th or 7th century
BCE.1 The most well studied of these archaic burial grounds, known as tophets from biblical
analogies, have been recovered at Carthage, Sulcis (Sardinia), Tharros (Sardinia), and Mozia
(Sicily).2 Immediately after the discovery of the first tophets, scholars inscribed the archaeo-
logical data with information derived from Greco-Roman sources, a practice common in
the early 20th century, when archaeological evidence was sought to confirm or reject textual
narratives.3
    One of the most persistent claims of Greco-Roman sources is that Phoenicians and Car-
thaginians regularly practiced child sacrifice. As a result, reconstructions of Phoenician or
Carthaginian religion often reproduce these claims. In the following, I reconsider these nar-
ratives with reference to recent osteoarchaeological studies at various tophets. I illustrate that
the practices recovered archaeologically at tophets bear little resemblance to the narratives of
Greco-Roman sources, a position argued before but deserving restatement in light of recent
historiographical developments.4 Next, I ask whether any Phoenician colonial population
    1
      Quinn (2018) for a full discussion of the ethnonym.
    2
      For recent interpretations of archaic tophets, Orsingher (2015) and D’ Andrea, Giardino (2011). For the
excavation history of all tophets in North Africa, D’ Andrea (2014). For excavations at specific tophets, Hard-
en (1937); Hurst, Stager (1978); Stager, Wolf (1984); Ennabli (1987); Ben Jerbania et al. (2020); Melchiorri
(2009); Moscati (1987a); Ciasca (1971), Ciasca (1973), and Ciasca (1992).
    3
      For a complete historiography, D’Andrea (2018), 59-98. For recent intepretations of the tophet phenom-
enon, Quinn (2012-2013) and Bonnet (2011).
    4
      Simonetti (1983); Moscati (1987b); Ribichini (1987); Ribichini (1990). More recently, Bonnet (2011)
and Ribichini (2020). Other scholars, however, remain convinced that the archaeology of tophets and Gre-
co-Roman texts cohere sufficiently to continue to use the Greco-Roman sources as evidence, Xella (2009).

cc-by-nd
                                             Nathan L. Pilkington


would be able to sustain a regular practice of infanticide. To answer this question, I build a
series of parametric models that allow for the estimation of relative population growth in the
context of archaic Phoenician colonies of the 9/8th-7/6th centuries BCE. Through these mo-
dels, I demonstrate that even in the healthiest possible pre-modern geography, limited infant
sacrifice has significant effects on population growth over fifteen generations of mothers. I
argue that the weight of these demographic models suggests that even a few sacrifices per year
should have resulted in significantly reduced population growth at Phoenician colonies. To
conclude, I employ archaeological evidence related to population and urban growth at Mo-
zia and build two population models for the colony. These models indicate that a relatively
healthy population, augmented by regular immigration, could have sustained a single infant
sacrifice per year. However, population growth at Mozia would have slowed substantially,
failing below current archaeological estimates of population growth at the site.

    1. The Tophet: A Brief Historiography
    Before the archaeological discovery of the first tophet, child sacrifice was long an accusa-
tion hurled at Phoenician populations in the Greco- Roman textual record, though Carthage
is often the specific target of these attacks. The earliest sources on child sacrifice are not
preserved as original texts. Rather, scholars possess fragments of these narratives as reported
by later writers.5 The only continuous texts containing ‘historical’ narratives come from the
Roman imperial period: Diodorus and Justin.
    In the early 20th century, the archaeological discovery of cemeteries containing only cre-
mated infants, children and animals appeared to provide the necessary physical confirmation
of child sacrifice as documented in the Greco-Roman sources. Above the urns with cremated
remains, excavators discovered numerous burial stelae with inscriptions. As was customary in
the first half of the 20th century, scholars interpreted the inscriptions on tophet burial stelae
with reference to the practices recorded in Greco-Roman sources and the Bible.6 These studies
identified the presence of a specific term in inscriptions for sacrifice at the tophet: MLK.7 One
of the earliest examples of this formula from Carthage dates to the 7th or 6th century BCE. The
inscription reads: a pillar of offering (MLK) for Baal which Magon, the son of Hanno, gave
to Baal Hammon.8 That MLK represents a specific type of sacrifice associated with the tophet
appears to be supported by an inscription from Malta.9 In this inscription, the formula is:
a stele of offering (MLK) of a lamb which Arash placed [here] to Baal Hammon, the Lord.
    Given these synergies among the textual, archaeological, and epigraphic evidence, many
scholars had concluded by the end of the 20th century that Phoenician populations in the
central Mediterranean regularly sacrificed their children, though there was dissent from this
position.10 Vance summed up the debate with the following statement:
   5
       A fragment of Cleitarchus is the most debated (Jacoby (1929), fr.9). Ribichini (2020) for a full discussion.
   6
       D’Andrea (2018), 131-138 for a selection of Greco-Roman and Biblical sources.
    7
       Though not all scholars agreed to this reading. Initially, the letters were interpreted as the name of a god,
Moloch/Molech, a position challenged by Eissfeldt, who turned the debate towards a sacrificial interpretation.
For these early 20th century studies, Cooke (1903), 104; R.E.S. 307; Eissfeldt (1935); Dussaud (1946); Alt
(1950); Février (1953); Amadasi Guzzo (1967), 20-21; Weinfeld (1972). Amadasi Guzzo, Zamora Lopéz (2012-
13) for a recent reappraisal of inscriptional formula from tophets. D’Andrea (2018), 59-98 contains a complete
historiography.
    8
       CIS I. 5685; See also, CIS I. 123a=KAI 61A; CIS I. 147; CIS I. 194; CIS. I.195; CIS I. 380; KAI 98; KAI
99. CIS= Corpus Inscriptionum Semitcarum; KAI=Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften.
    9
       CIS I. 123b= KAI 61 B= Amadasi Guzzo (1967), Malta #5
    10
        Stager, Wolf (1984); Heider (1985); Moscati (1987b); Bénichou-Safar (1988); Lipiński (1988); Day


                                                         2
                                  Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

       Some, mostly American and British, scholars are convinced that child sacrifice was ac-
       tually practiced. There is textual evidence from several areas and the remains of burned
       children have been found. Other scholars, particularly French and Italian, are equally
       convinced that the practice was only the means of handling the corpses of children who
       died very young or who were stillborn. For these scholars, the legends of child sacrifice
       are the product of xenophobic imaginations of those outside Phenicio-Punic culture.
       The prudent position would seem to be to wait until the publication of Stager’s osteo-
       logical evidence from Carthage and see if it supports his conviction that children were
       indeed the victims of an insidious rite.11
    In reality, such hope for the clarity brought by science was misplaced. Rather, multiple
teams of scholars have reached different conclusions concerning tophet skeletons.12 In 2010,
Schwartz et al. published an osteological examination of tophet skeletons from Carthage.
Their findings can be stated simply: a large portion of the skeletons recovered at the tophet
were prenatal or neonatal.13 Consequently, these particular infants were not candidates for
live sacrifice, as they were either still births/miscarriages or infants who died during or shortly
after birth.14




                             Figure 1. Age Distribution of Carthaginian Skeletons15

   They also found that the distribution of ages matched known, natural infant mortality
profiles from antiquity, supporting previous arguments that the tophet was a burial ground


(1989); Brown (1991); Xella (1991); Bénichou-Safar (1993).
    11
        Vance (1994), 118.
    12
        Schwartz et al. (2010); Smith et al. (2011); Schwartz et al. (2012); Smith et al. (2013); Stager (2014);
Schwartz et al. (2017). D’Andrea (2018), 17: “In generale, bisogna considerare il fatto che questi studi sono
stati effettuati in periodi diversi e utilizzando metodologie diverse. Essi sono oggettivamente complicati da una
serie di elementi derivanti perlopiù dalla difficoltà di esaminare e determinare con precisione resti cremati di
individui immaturi, umani e animali, talvolta mescolati e spesso frammentari per quanto riguarda sia lo stato
di conservazione sia le parti scheletriche rappresentate. Talvolta i risultati di queste analisi appaiono influenzati
dalle tesi interpretative degli autori (o, comunque, dei « committenti » delle stesse) e dall’epoca in cui esse sono
state effettuate. Spesso, inoltre, questi studi non hanno tenuto conto del contesto archeologico e della stratigrafia
dei cinerari restituendo pertanto una visione appiattita che non consente una lettura sincronica o diacronica.
È dunque necessaria una grande cautela nell’uso, nella comparazione e nelle generalizzazione di questi dati.”
    13
        Richard (1961).
    14
        Schwartz et al. (2010).
    15
        Schwartz et al. (2010).


                                                         3
                                       Nathan L. Pilkington


for naturally deceased infants.16 Importantly, Schwartz et al. noted that bodies were burnt on
an open funeral pyre with varying degrees of temperature.
    A separate group of scholars published a rebuttal to Schwartz et al. in 2011. The primary
method by which Smith et al. age tophet skeletons is a new method of identifying tooth age,
based on estimates of tooth shrinking as part of a cremation. Smith et al. establish an estimate
of tooth shrinking through examples from modern studies in which cremation is conducted
in ovens and not on open funeral pyres. Even under oven cremation conditions, shrinkage
rates vary. To deal with this variation, Smith et al. employ an average of 6mm of shrinking
due to cremation. They then argue that this shrinking represents about four to six weeks of
growth using an average of 0.015mm for daily tooth development. Smith et al. comment,
“These findings suggest that a minimum of four weeks should be added to age estimates of
the cremated teeth from Carthage to compensate for shrinking due to cremation.”17 Smith
et al. use this shrinkage rate to age to post-natal skeletons that would have been identified as
pre-natal using the methods of Schwartz et al. In their reconstruction, the largest percentage
of burials were infants 1-2 months in age, constituting 62% of their total sample. Further,
they note that their mortality profile of infants from the Carthaginian tophet does not follow
natural mortality patterns, which spike in the immediate post natal period. Therefore, Smith
et al. conclude that the Carthaginians were actively sacrificing these infants.18
    In 2012, Schwartz et al. published a response to the Smith et al. study.19 In this publica-
tion, Schwartz and his coauthors mostly restate their initial findings, but also take the oppor-
tunity to assess Smith et al. They conclude:
        In the light of an extensive metrical analysis of deciduous tooth crowns, we cannot
        accept their premise because, if deciduous tooth crowns did shrink 6mm, most (upper
        and lower deciduous incisors and canines in particular) would not have survived incin-
        eration. We also do not know if the incinerated teeth Soleil et al. measured were initial-
        ly shorter than the unincinerated teeth Deutsch et al. measured. A 6mm adjustment for
        shrinkage is not compatible with Smith et al.’s statement that crown length increases at
        a rate of 0.015mm/day. At 0.015mm/day, shrinkage should be 0.42mm. More impor-
        tantly, crown-size increase cannot be uniform in all dimensions because recruitment
        rates of new ameloblasts vary along the enamel-dentine juncture, from 20-30/μm/day
        at the cusp tip to 3-6/ μm /day near the cervix. Furthermore, while uniform shrinkage
        might be achieved in a closed oven, it is unlikely in small-branch, open-air pyres.20
    In addition to publications concerning the Carthaginian tophet, recent excavations have
occurred in the tophet at Sulcis. At Sulcis, excavations revealed 110 new burials. Of these,
72 were examined to determine the contents. Melchiorri comments, “Sur un total de 72
cinéraires examinés, des restes humains seuls ont été diagnostiqués pour 50 d’entre eux; plus
précisément, il s’agit de 52 individus d’un âge compris entre la phase périnatale et 4–5 ans de
vie; 30 au moins étaient des nouveau-nés, dont 9 entre 0 et six mois; 6 individus avaient entre
six et neuf mois; 4 avaient environ 18 mois. Deux individus étaient plus âgés, respectivement
3–4 ans et 4–5 ans”.21 At Sulcis, 88% of the individuals are under one year of age with the
   16
        Benichou-Safar (1981), 5-9.
   17
        Smith et al. (2011), 863.
   18
        Schwartz et al. (2010).
   19
        Schwartz et al. (2012).
   20
        Schwartz et al. (2012), 742.
   21
        Melchiorri (2009), 517.


                                                 4
                                 Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

majority falling in the neonatal period. Melchiorri also reported highly variable cremation
temperatures, “D’après l’évaluation chromatique des os et des fissurations qui ont été mis en
évidence, il a été possible d’établir que 70 % des échantillons avaient atteint des températures
entre 400 et 600° C, tandis que 17 % des crémations avaient atteint des températures plus
élevées, comprises entre 600 et 900°. 12 % des cas correspondent à des températures vari-
ables, entre 100 et 300° C.”22
    Given the contradictory interpretations of recent osteoarchaeological studies, in 2013, Xe-
lla et al. published their assessment of the evidence as a capstone to the debate in Antiquity.23
In their work, the authors deliberately broaden the evidence under consideration in order to
escape the constraints of the skeletal evidence. They argue that the totality of epigraphic, liter-
ary, biblical, and archaeological evidence proves sacrifice occurred. While the authors do not
directly address the rate of sacrifice, they do note that quantitative studies of recovered urns
from Mozia indicate a sacrifice rate of 1 to 2 victims per year.24 Further, using the evidence of
animal bones recovered in tophet burials, the authors argue that sacrifices were highly season-
al and thus only occurred once or twice per year.25
          Xella et al. also discount the possibility of textual bias in Greco-Roman sources and
dismiss extant studies from this perspective. They comment, “There is no prima facie reason
to doubt the universal verdict of Greek and Roman authors on the matter, selective infan-
ticide being unremarkable in the ancient Mediterranean or elsewhere.”26 It is with this final
point that I want to begin. All of the osteologists in the tophet debate agree that the vast
majority of skeletons are under one year of age with the heaviest concentration in the pre/
neo-natal period (Schwartz) or 1-2 months of age (Smith).27 In sum, do the Greco-Roman
sources actually describe the sacrifice of this population?

    2. Diodorus, Justin, Plutarch
    In the 1980s, Simonetti, Ribichini, and Moscati challenged the received belief that the
evidence of the Greco-Roman sources and the archaeological records of tophets cohere, a po-
sition deserving of restatement in light of recent osteoarchaeological finds.28 Here, I primarily
focus on Diodorus, Justin, and Plutarch due to the fact that scholars possess continuous and
lengthy narratives or multiple preserved texts that allow for intra-textual study of age catego-
ries. Through this analysis, I illustrate the degree to which the practices recorded, at the most
basic level of the age of the victim, do not converge with the evidence of more than fifty years
of osteoarchaeological research.29 For the historian, such disjunction matters. In the present
state of the tophet debate, the Greco- Roman sources remain the falsifiable variable and the

   22
        Melchiorri (2009), 517; Aounallah et al. (2020) for the results of a recent excavation in the chronologi-
cally later tophet at Dougga. They excavators note, “Les individus dont les restes brûlés ont été déposés dans le
sanctuaire sont des périnataux entre sept mois in utero et deux mois après la naissance. Aucune trace pouvant
être liée à un geste ayant donné la mort n’a été observée sur les ossements.”
    23
        Xella et al. (2013); Xella also edited a volume in which multiple scholars argue for sacrifices at tophets,
Xella (2012-13).
    24
        Orsingher (2018) for a summation of the evidence of infant and child burials at Mozia,
    25
        A position contested strongly by Ribichini (2020).
    26
        Xella et al. (2013), 1203.
    27
        Schwartz et al. (2010); Smith et al. (2011).
    28
        D’Andrea (2018), 68-76 for a full discussion of all challenges to the standard interpretation of the tophet
in the 1980s and 90s. Simonetti (1983); Moscati (1987); Ribichini (1987); Ribichini (1990). For a more recent
restatement, Ribichini (2020).
    29
        Xella (2009) reads this evidence differently.


                                                        5
                                             Nathan L. Pilkington


structuring evidence against which other evidence is weighed.30 However, as Simonetti, Ribi-
chini, and Moscati long ago demonstrated, the Greco-Roman narratives are in fact falsified
by comparison of their contents to archaeological finds.
   Diodorus records two instances of sacrifice in his narratives:
         13.86: Ἰμίλκας δὲ θεωρῶν τὰ πλήθη δεισιδαιμονοῦντα πρῶτον μὲν ἐπαύσατο
         καθαιρῶν τὰ μνημεῖα, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἱκέτευε τοὺς θεοὺς κατὰ τὸ πάτριον ἔθος τῷ
         μὲν Κρόνῳ παῖδα σφαγιάσας31

         20.14: ᾐτιῶντο δὲ καὶ τὸν Κρόνον αὑτοῖς ἐναντιοῦσθαι, καθ᾽ ὅσον ἐν τοῖς
         ἔμπροσθεν χρόνοις θύοντες τούτῳ τῷ θεῷ τῶν υἱῶν τοὺς κρατίστους ὕστερον
         ὠνούμενοι λάθρᾳ παῖδας καὶ θρέψαντες ἔπεμπον ἐπὶ τὴν θυσίαν: καὶ ζητήσεως
         γενομένης εὑρέθησάν τινες τῶν καθιερουργημένων ὑποβολιμαῖοι γεγονότες.
         τούτων δὲ λαβόντες ἔννοιαν καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους πρὸς τοῖς τείχεσιν ὁρῶντες
         στρατοπεδεύοντας ἐδεισιδαιμόνουν ὡς καταλελυκότες τὰς πατρίους τῶν
         θεῶν τιμάς. διορθώσασθαι δὲ τὰς ἀγνοίας σπεύδοντες διακοσίους μὲν τῶν
         ἐπιφανεστάτων παίδων προκρίναντες ἔθυσαν δημοσίᾳ: ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἐν διαβολαῖς
         ὄντες ἑκουσίως ἑαυτοὺς ἔδοσαν, οὐκ ἐλάττους ὄντες τριακοσίων. ἦν δὲ παρ᾽
         αὐτοῖς ἀνδριὰς Κρόνου χαλκοῦς, ἐκτετακὼς τὰς χεῖρας ὑπτίας ἐγκεκλιμένας ἐπὶ
         τὴν γῆν, ὥστε τὸν ἐπιτεθέντα τῶν παίδων ἀποκυλίεσθαι καὶ πίπτειν εἴς τι χάσμα
         πλῆρες πυρός32

   Though these passages seem to confirm the impression that the Carthaginians sacrificed
children, they have very little to do with the archaeology of recovered tophets. Both the
Schwartz and Smith teams, irrespective of exact aging would agree that tophet skeletons are
predominately infants under one year of age and not children, generically, as noted earlier.
But, Diodorus has nothing to say about infants and sacrifice. Rather, he clearly states that
victims are children, which for him is an older age category. He does mark the presence of
infants in multiple other places in his narrative, indicating that he possesses a concept of
infancy.
         13.57: εἰς δὲ τὴν ἀγορὰν συνδραμόντων τῶν Σελινουντίων, οὗτοι μὲν ἐνταῦθα
         μαχόμενοι πάντες ἀνῃρέθησαν: οἱ δὲ βάρβαροι σκεδασθέντες καθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν
         τὴν μὲν ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις εὐδαιμονίαν συνήρπασαν, τῶν δὲ ἐγκαταληφθέντων
         σωμάτων ἃ μὲν ταῖς οἰκίαις συγκατέκαιον, τῶν δ᾽ εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς βιαζομένων οὐ
   30
       Mura (2022).
   31
       Himilcar, on seeing how the throng was beset with superstitious fear, first of all put a stop to the destruc-
tion of the monuments, and then he supplicated the gods after the custom of his people by sacrificing a boy.
Oldfather (1950).
    32
       They [the Carthaginians] also alleged that Cronus had turned against them inasmuch as in former times
they had been accustomed to sacrifice to this god the noblest of their sons, but more recently, secretly buying
and nurturing children, they had sent these to the sacrifice; and when an investigation was made, some of those
who had been sacrificed were discovered to have been supposititious. When they had given thought to these
things and saw their enemy encamped before their walls, they were filled with superstitious dread, for they
believed that they had neglected the honours of the gods that had been established by their fathers. In their
zeal to make amends for their omission, they selected two hundred of the noblest children and sacrificed them
publicly; and others who were under suspicion sacrificed themselves voluntarily, in number not less than three
hundred. 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. Geer (1954).


                                                         6
                                Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs


         διακρίνοντες οὔτε φύσιν οὔθ᾽ ἡλικίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως παῖδας νηπίους, γυναῖκας,
         πρεσβύτας ἐφόνευον, οὐδεμίαν συμπάθειαν λαμβάνοντες.33

         13.111: Διονύσιος δὲ παραγενόμενος εἰς τὴν Καμάριναν, ἠνάγκασε καὶ τοὺς
         ἐκεῖ μετὰ τέκνων καὶ γυναικῶν εἰς Συρακούσας ἀπιέναι. τοῦ φόβου δ᾽ οὐδεμίαν
         ἀναβολὴν διδόντος τινὲς μὲν ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον καὶ τὰ ῥᾳδίως φέρεσθαι
         δυνάμενα συνεσκευάζοντο, τινὲς δὲ γονεῖς καὶ τέκνα τὰ νήπια λαβόντες ἔφευγον,
         οὐδεμίαν ἐπιστροφὴν χρημάτων ποιούμενοι: ἔνιοι δὲ γεγηρακότες ἢ νόσῳ
         βαρυνόμενοι δι᾽ ἐρημίαν συγγενῶν ἢ φίλων ὑπελείποντο, προσδοκωμένων ὅσον
         οὔπω παρέσεσθαι τῶν Καρχηδονίων34

         14.52: οἱ δὲ Μοτυηνοὶ τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ κινδύνου λογιζόμενοι, καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν
         καὶ τῶν τέκνων ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ὄντων, τῷ περὶ τούτων φόβῳ προθυμότερον
         ἠγωνίζοντο. οἱ μὲν γὰρ γονέων παρεστώτων καὶ δεομένων μὴ περιιδεῖν αὐτοὺς
         τῇ τούτων ὕβρει παραδιδομένους ἐπηγείροντο ταῖς ψυχαῖς, οὐδεμίαν φειδὼ τοῦ
         ζῆν ποιούμενοι, οἱ δὲ γυναικῶν καὶ νηπίων τέκνων θρῆνον ἀκούοντες ἔσπευδον
         εὐγενῶς ἀποθανεῖν, πρὶν ἐπιδεῖν τὴν τῶν τέκνων αἰχμαλωσίαν35

   In these examples, παῖδα (13.86), παῖδας/παίδων (20.14/13.111) and τέκνων (14.52)
are children at an age when they can walk and talk (or children, generally, of any age). They
can be distinguished against infants, παῖδας νηπίους (13.57), τέκνα τὰ νήπια (13.111),
νηπίων τέκνων (14.52), who lack these abilities.
   Diodorus reinforces this distinction outside of battle narratives at 17.91:
         διόπερ ἐκ νηπίου παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὰ βρέφη διακρίνεται καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄρτια καὶ τὴν φύσιν
         ἔχοντα πρὸς εὐπρέπειαν καὶ ἰσχὺν εὔθετον τρέφεται, τὰ δὲ καταδεῆ τοῖς σώμασιν
         ἀνάξια τροφῆς ἡγούμενοι διαφθείρουσιν. ἀκολούθως δὲ τούτοις καὶ τοὺς γάμους
         ποιοῦνται προικὸς μὲν καὶ τῆς ἄλλης πολυτελείας ἀφροντιστοῦντες, κάλλους δὲ
         καὶ τῆς τοῦ σώματος ὑπεροχῆς μόνον φροντίζοντες.36



   33
       The Selinuntians gathered into the market-place and all who reached it died fighting there; and the bar-
barians, scattering throughout the entire city, plundered whatever of value was to be found in the dwellings,
while of the inhabitants they found in them some they burned together with their homes and when others
struggled into the streets, without distinction of sex or age but whether infant children or women or old men,
they put them to the sword, showing no sign of compassion. Oldfather (1950).
    34
       When Dionysius arrived at Camarina, he compelled the residents of that city also to depart with their
children and wives to Syracuse. And since their fear admitted of no delay, some gathered together silver and
gold and whatever could be easily carried, while others fled with only their parents and infant children, paying
no attention to valuables; and some, who were aged or suffering from illness, were left behind because they had
no relatives or friends, since the Carthaginians were expected to arrive almost immediately. Oldfather (1950).
    35
       The Motyans, as they took account of the magnitude of the peril, and with their wives and children
before their eyes, fought the more fiercely out of fear for their fate. There were some whose parents stood by
entreating them not to let them be surrendered to the lawless will of victors, who were thus wrought to a pitch
where they set no value on life; others, as they heard the laments of their wives and infant children, sought to
die like men rather than to see their children led into captivity. Oldfather (1954).
    36
       From birth, their babies are subjected to a process of selection. Those who are well formed and designed
by nature to have a fine appearance and bodily strength are reared, while those who are bodily deficient are
destroyed as not worth bringing up. Welles (1963).


                                                       7
                                           Nathan L. Pilkington


    Here, Diodorus denotes birth, νηπίου, and babies, βρέφη, reinforcing the idea that Dio-
dorus has very specific concepts of the stages of development for children.
    To return to the narratives of sacrifice, when contextualized, Diodorus is clearly referen-
cing older children, who rarely figure in the archaeological record of tophets. In 13.86, he
uses παῖδα, child, with no accompanying adjective to denote a sacrifice victim. This usage
is continued in 20.14. First, we have children or sons, υἱῶν, followed by παῖδας, who he
qualifies as θρέψαντες, reared or nurtured. Reared suggests much more time than the first
few days or weeks of life.
    The same aging problem present in Diodorus is also visible in the narrative of Justin. Jus-
tin describes sacrifice but not infant sacrifice. Justin 18.6:
        Cum inter cetera mala etiam peste laborarent, cruenta sacrorum religione et scelere pro
        remedio usi sunt ; quippe homines ut victimas immolabant et inpuberes, quae aetas
        etiam hostium misericordiam provocat, aris admovebant.37
   In(m)pubes does not normally denote infants in Latin. Rather, the term is generally ap-
plied to a youth who is nearing physical maturity. It is also a technical legal term to denote
minority in age. Justin often uses it in this sense. At 1.1, Justin utilizes “inpubere filio Ninya”
to denote a boy too young to assume the kingship when his father dies, a meaning he again
employs at 29.1, “in Asia interfecto Seleuco inpubes adhuc rex Antiochus constitutus est”. At
5.6, he writes “inpuberes pueri” to denote boys enrolled in the military who are too young to
fight. Justin also provides a second narrative of sacrifice at 19.1:
        Dum haec aguntur, legati a Dario, Persarum rege, Karthaginem venerunt adferentes
        edictum, quo Poeni humanas hostias immolare et canina vesci prohibebantur. mortu-
        orumque corpora cremare potius quam terra obruere a rege iubebantur petentes simul
        auxilia adversus Graeciam, cui inlaturus bellum Darius erat. Sed Karthaginienses aux-
        ilia negantes propter adsidua finitimorum bella ceteris, ne per omnia contumaces vid-
        erentur, cupide parvere.38
    In this example, Justin does not even note the presence of children, just humans. He
also claims that Darius prohibits the Carthaginians from eating dogs, an assertion that has
received comparatively less attention than claims of human sacrifice. Additionally, Justin
implies that the Carthaginians agree to stop human sacrifice, again complicating scholarly re-
constructions that seek to use his narrative to read archaeological evidence from the tophet.39
If true, the Carthaginian tophet should have ceased to contain infant burials by 490 BCE. In
reality, infant burials continue until the destruction of the city.40

   37
       Being afflicted, among other calamities, with a pestilence, they adopted a cruel religious ceremony, an
execrable abomination, as a remedy for it; for they immolated human beings as victims, and brought children
(whose age excites pity even in enemies) to the altars. Watson (1853).
    38
       During the course of these transactions, ambassadors came to Carthage from Darius king of Persia, bring-
ing an edict, by which the Carthaginians were forbidden to offer human sacrifices, and to eat dog’s flesh, and
were commanded to burn the bodies of the dead rather than bury them in the earth; and requesting, at the same
time, assistance against Greece, on which Darius was about to make war. The Carthaginians declined giving him
aid, on account of their continual wars with their neighbors, but, that they might not appear uncompliant in
everything, willingly submitted to the decree. Watson (1853).
    39
       Xella (2009) for a discussion of attempts by outsiders to stop Carthaginian child sacrifice.
    40
       Ben Jerbania et al. (2022), 1151-1153; D’Andrea (2014), 44-46. D’ Andrea (2021) for an analysis of the
spread of tophets from the 4th-1st centuries BCE.


                                                      8
                                 Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

  Finally, in Plutarch’s narrative of child sacrifice, he cites the source, Empedocles, from
which he forms his opinion. Plutarch, De Superstitione, 13:
         τί δέ; Καρχηδονίοις οὐκ ἐλυσιτέλει Κριτίαν λαβοῦσιν ἢ Διαγόραν νομοθέτην ἀπ᾽
         ἀρχῆς μήτε τινὰ δαιμόνων μήτε θεῶν νομίζειν ἢ τοιαῦτα θύειν οἷα τῷ Κρόνῳ
         ἔθυον; οὐχ ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς φησι τῶν τὰ ζῷα θυόντων καθαπτόμενος

         μορφὴν δ᾽ ἀλλάξαντα πατὴρ φίλον υἱὸν ἀείρας
         σφάζει ἐπευχόμενος μέγα νήπιος,

         ἀλλ᾽ εἰδότες καὶ γιγνώσκοντες αὐτοὶ τὰ αὑτῶν τέκνα καθιέρευον, οἱ δ᾽
         ἄτεκνοι παρὰ τῶν πενήτων ὠνούμενοι παιδία κατέσφαζον καθάπερ ἄρνας ἢ
         νεοσσούς, παρειστήκει δ᾽ ἡ μήτηρ ἄτεγκτος καὶ ἀστένακτος. εἰ δὲ στενάξειεν ἢ
         δακρύσειεν, ἔδει τῆς τιμῆς στέρεσθαι, τὸ δὲ παιδίον οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐθύετο, κρότου
         τε κατεπίμπλατο πάντα πρὸ τοῦ ἀγάλματος ἐπαυλούντων καὶ τυμπανιζόντων
         ἕνεκα τοῦ μὴ γίγνεσθαι τὴν βοὴν τῶν θρήνων ἐξάκουστον.41

    Empedocles lived in the 5th century BCE in Sicily, in a town the Carthaginians conque-
red after his death. As cited, Empedocles employs the word νήπιος but not to describe the
sacrificial victim. Rather, he deploys it in a possible word play, μέγα νήπιος, “how infantile”,
being one possible translation. Plutarch obviously does not recognize the potential double
entendre, as he uses τέκνα, παιδία and παιδίον to describe the sacrificial victims.
    Xella has argued that παιδίον, in this passage, refers specifically to “bambini molto picco-
lo.”42 However, the word is merely a diminutive of child and not specific to very small child-
ren or babies. In the Eumenes (13), Plutarch refers to a 3-4 year old Alexander IV as παιδίον.
Similarly, in the Brutus (13), he refers to the child of Porcia, at the time of her marriage to
Brutus, as παιδίον…μικρόν. Porcia’s first husband had died in 48 BCE. Her marriage to
Brutus occurred in 45 BCE. The child, therefore, was three or more years old.
    In sum, in these three sources, often cited, there is but one potential description of infant
sacrifice and that in a word play. Moreover, these source narratives appear to describe a prac-
tice that has very little to do with archaeology of the tophet as recovered. Therefore, while
infanticide may have been “unremarkable”, these three often cited Greco-Roman sources are
not describing infanticide. Instead, they record child sacrifice, the killing of older, healthy
children, a practice that was remarkable in the Greco-Roman world.43

   41
        Again, would it not have been far better for the Carthaginians to have taken Critias or Diagoras to draw
up their law-code at the very beginning, and so not to believe in any divine power or god, rather than to offer
such sacrifices as they used to offer to Cronos? These were not in the manner that Empedocles describes in his
attack on those who sacrifice living creatures:
     Changed in form is the son beloved of his father so pious,
     Who on the altar lays him and slays him. What Folly!
     No, but with full knowledge and understanding they themselves offered up their own children, and those
who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs
or young birds ; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan ; but should she utter a single moan or
let fall a single tear, she had to forfeit the money, and her child was sacrificed nevertheless ; and the whole area
before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums so that the cries of wailing should not reach
the ears of the people. Babbitt (1928).
     42
        Xella (2009), 90.
     43
        Shaw (2001).


                                                         9
                                             Nathan L. Pilkington


    While fragmentary sources on sacrifice, by their very nature, do not allow for the study
of an author’s use of age-related language, the most commonly cited fragments produced in
the last four centuries BCE contain generic words for children or small children.44 Further,
the diction is similar to that of Diodorus, Justin, and Plutarch. For example, Cleitarchus uses
ἑνὸς τῶν παίδων and παιδίον, children and small child, to describe sacrificial victims. A
fragment of Ennius identifies the victims as puellos, little boys.45
    A change occurs in Latin narratives from the 1st century CE, most notably in the Punica
of Silius Italicus. In Punica 4.467, Silius describes the victims of sacrifice as “parvos…natos”.
While natos can mean children of any age, Silius in other instances uses the term to refer
specifically to infants. At 4.377, he narrates a woman breastfeeding children in the following
manner, “suspendit ab ubere natos.” From this point, several Latin authors identify the sacri-
ficial victims as infans, infants. Tertullian records two usages of the term. Minucius Felix has
one usage.46
    By contrast, Greek authors do not follow the same convention from the 1st century CE.
Instead, the language is the same as that used by earlier authors. Origen denotes the victims
of sacrifice as τέκνα. Eusebius, citing Philo of Byblos, employs τέκνων and υἱὸν.47
    In sum, the vast majority of sources use the generic word for child or small child and not
specifically infant. Based on the evidence of Diodorus, Justin, and Plutarch, child and small
child in these contexts denotes individuals at an age when they can walk and talk, i.e. 1-2
years old or older. By contrast, the archaeology of the tophet at Carthage reveals very few
individuals in this age category. Of 540 individuals, Schwartz et al. aged 11 sets of remains
to 1-2 years old and 29 to older age categories. Smith et al. in their sample of 390 individuals
identified 13 1-2 year olds and 15 in older age categories. Respectively, individuals one year
and older constitute 7.4% and 7.1% of burials in the Carthaginian tophet. The remainder
are infants, predominately younger than three months, a group nearly absent from the Gre-
co-Roman source tradition.
    To conclude, it should be noted that the same problems evident in the Greco-Roman
sources characterize the epigraphic record of tophets. No mention is made of infants or
children by any inscription during the 8th-2nd centuries BCE. Additionally, the use of MLK
as a sacrificial term appears to have predominated in the archaic period only.48 From the 5th
century, after the goddess TNT had been added to the cult, the standard formula of tophet
inscriptions, of which well more than 1000 examples exist, is: ‘To the Great One, to TNT,
the Face of Baal, and to the Lord, to Baal Hammon, that which (Name) vowed.’49 Only oc-
casionally does the term MLK appear at the very end of the text in these later inscriptions.50
Most, however, make no reference to sacrifice.


   44
       D’Andrea (2018), 135 ff. for all the commonly cited sources.
   45
       Jacoby (1929), fr. 9; Warmington (1935), fr. 237; Certain narratives of child sacrifice are not fragments
but part of larger narratives that should allow for the study of age categories. However, these narratives describe
victims in a manner that is too generic for such study. Pseudo Plato (Minos 315 b-c) employs ὑεῖς, children or
sons. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (AR 1.38.2) does not even specific an age of victims. He simply notes sacrifices,
θυσίας.
    46
       Tertullian, Apology, 9; Minucius Felix, Octavian, 30.3; Xella (2009), 79-80 for discussion of Silius’ pas-
sage.
    47
       Origen, Against Celsus, 5.27; Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 1.10.44.
    48
       D’Andrea (2018), 24-31 for a full discussion.
    49
       CIS I.440 and following for multitudes of examples.
    50
       D’Andrea (2014), 57-58; Amadasi Guzzo, Zamora Lopéz (2012-13).


                                                       10
                                Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

    3. The Demography of Colonial Populations
    If we discard the Greco-Roman sources as falsified, it is possible to consider tophet skele-
tons and their deposition as a demographic problem, an argument scholars first put forward
in the 1980s. At that time, however, assumptions were made about the health of ancient
populations that proved false.51 Over the last three decades, scholars have made substantial
advances in studies of ancient health and demography, primarily through incorporation of
skeletal evidence into demographic reconstructions.52 These studies have demonstrated that
ancient populations were more unhealthy than envisaged by demographic models based on
19th century populations.53 The totality of the evidence suggests that population growth was
in fact difficult to achieve in antiquity and likely proceeded slowly if at all (0.05- 0.15% per
annum) over the long term.54 Thus demographic studies that consider infant sacrifice as a
form of population control err in the most basic premise. In the following, I put forward a
series of models that account for updated understandings of ancient population dynamics.55
    Based on current understandings of health in antiquity, it is possible to model a generation
of reproductive adults and the number of offspring produced in an ancient colonial context.
Infant sacrifice can then be introduced into the models to understand its effects. The point
of this section is therefore simple. Models allow for the estimation of probability. One can
determine at what rate a reproductive population needs to grow endogenously in a colonial
context to support any regular practice of infant sacrifice. In turn, probable population mo-
dels can be read into current archaeological records at various sites. Thus one can test various
scenarios against physical evidence. In this process of comparison, demography and archaeo-
logy create their own falsifiable variables independent of the ancient source tradition.
    I develop three different model populations, designed specifically to capture a range of
demographic possibilities for archaic Phoenician colonies of the central Mediterranean. Each
of the population models focuses on reproductive adults only rather than total population.
Therefore, to achieve a total population metric, the reproductive populations studied in these
models may be multiplied by 3,4, or 5, as comparative evidence indicates reproductive adults
constitute 20-33% of the total population in pre-modern contexts. Further, I build the mo-
dels with large starting populations in order to test both low and high rates of sacrifice. In
reality, Phoenician colonies were smaller when founded. I, therefore, conclude this section by
adapting the model populations to currently known archaeological evidence about popula-
tion growth at Mozia.
    Population #1 is designed to be a maximum bound, representing an undocumented and
likely impossible endogenous rate of growth for an ancient population. Population #2, by
contrast, is within the very upper limits of conjectured endogenous population growth. Fi-
nally, Population #3 is designed to be average, which for antiquity is unhealthy, and repre-
sents a lower bound for this study. Any population with health below that of population #3

   51
       Stager and Wolff (1984); Suder (1991); González Wagner (1991), 411-416; Ruiz Cabrero (2007), 618 ff..
   52
       Pilkington (2013); Hin (2013).
    53
       Scheidel (2007) and Scheidel (2001) for discussion of the problems related to Coale-Demeny models and
their general inapplicability to the conditions of the ancient Mediterranean.
    54
       Scheidel (2007); Scheidel (2001); For an argument that ancient populations could achieve 2-3 % growth,
Sallares (1991), 85-88.
    55
       Garnand et al. (2012-2013) for a recent attempt to model the demography of tophets, though no mathe-
matical models are presented. Further, their verbal models assume far too high rates of infant mortality, “infant
children would have been only marginally viable in their first year (ca. 50-60% mortality) (209).” No popula-
tion in antiquity is known to have been this unhealthy.


                                                      11
                                             Nathan L. Pilkington


would have been unable to sustain a regular practice of infanticide as the models make clear.
Immigration rates are absent from these initial models.
    Table 1 (below) shows the setup of the model for the first generation of reproductive
adults in Population #1, an improbably healthy population with low infant and childhood
mortality rates. For modelling purposes, I have started with an initial population of 2000
reproductive adults, who form the basis for the hypothetical colony. All are aged 20, and thus
fully fertile.56 None have had any prior children. All fertile adults are paired in each year of
the model. The adults experience a dropout rate of 1% per annum. Dropouts are caused by
death, infertility, disease, etc. Every year, therefore, fewer adults remain in our reproductive
population. One quarter of all reproductive pairs have a child every year. These children are
then subjected to a 20% infant mortality rate (birth-1) and a decreasing childhood mortality
rate, beginning at 10% in the second year and decreasing to 2% in the fifth year. No juvenile
mortality rate affects this population as it ages from 5-20.

          Year        Adult     Newborn            One        Two         Three        Four   Five
             1         2000              0             0         0            0          0      0
             2         1980           250              0         0            0          0      0
             3         1960           248           200          0            0          0      0
             4         1940           245           198       180             0          0      0
             5         1921           243           196       178          166           0      0
             6         1902           240           194       176          164         158      0
             7         1883           238           192       175          162         156    155
             8         1864           235           190       173          161         154    153
             9         1845           233           188       171          159         153    151
           10          1827           231           186       169          157         151    150
           11          1809           228           185       167          155         149    148
           12          1791           226          1802       167          154         147    146
           13          1773           224           181       164          154         146    144
           14          1755           222           179       163          151         146    143
           15          1737           219           178       161          150         143    143
                                      217           175       160          148         143    140
                                                    174       158          147         141    140
                                                              157          145         140    138
                                                                           144         138    137
                                                                                       137    135
                                                                                              134

                         Table 1. Reproductive Model of Population #1, Generation #1

   Because of low infant and childhood mortality rates, Population #1 is successful at growth.
In the first generation alone, the population produced 2157 surviving adult children. Using
the same model, I iterate the next generations of reproductive adults and establish a popula-
tion growth rate for this colony over 15 generations. For Carthage, or other colonies, this will
generally cover the period 800-575 or 750- 525 BCE. Over 225 years, Population #1 achieves

   56
        Pilkington (2013) for the age of girls at menarche.


                                                       12
                                 Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

212% growth. Annually, it nearly achieves nearly a 1% growth rate, beyond the known en-
dogenous growth rates of ancient populations over this long of a term.




                  Fig. 2. Population #1, Reproductive Population Growth over 15 Generations

    Now, I subject population #1 to infant sacrifice. Rates of burials in tophets vary by time
and place. At Mozia, studies indicate an average of one to two burials per year. By contrast,
Stager and Wolff estimated that the Carthaginian tophet received up to 20,000 urns from
400-200 BCE, a deposition rate of 100 urns per year, potentially indicating a tophet sacrifice
on one out of every three days, though not all urns contain human remains. Complicating
matters further, recent excavations at Carthage indicate that it is difficult to establish a mini-
mum number of individuals in urns with more than individual, due to the fact that bones ap-
pear to have been collected with a shovel like tool and dumped into the urn at the same time.
Ben Jerbania et al. comment, “il apparait que ce nombre d’individus présents réellement dans
les urnes constitue un problème plus complexe que l’on croyait et mérite ainsi d’être étudié.”57
    For the purposes of demographic modelling, I set the minimum number of infants sacri-
ficed at five and then increase to ten and fifteen per year for Population #1, simply to illus-
trate the effects on our upper bound. Additionally, I have placed the sacrifices within the first
year of life (from birth to 1).


    Year        Adults    Newborn        Remaining          One      Two   Three       Four       Five
         1       2000              0                          0        0       0              0     0
         2       1980           250             245           0        0       0              0     0
         3       1960           248             243         196        0       0              0     0
         4       1940           245             240         194      176       0              0     0
         5       1921           243             238         192      175     162              0     0
         6       1902           240             235         190      173     161        154         0
         7       1883           238             233         188      171     159        153       151


   57
        Ben Jerbania et al. (2022), 1154; Stager and Wolff (1984).


                                                       13
                                             Nathan L. Pilkington



     Year      Adults     Newborn        Remaining          One       Two       Three         Four           Five
        8        1864           235              230        186        169        157          151           150
        9        1845           233              228        184        167        155          149           148
        10       1827           231              226        182        166        154          147           146
        11       1809           228              223        181        164        153          146           144
        12       1791           226              221        178        163        151          145           143
        13       1773           224              219        177        160        150          143           142
        14       1755           222              217        175        159        147          143           140
        15       1737           219              214        174        158        146          140           140
                                217              212        171        157        145          139           137
                                                            170        154        144          138           136
                                                                       153        142          137           135
                                                                                  141          135           134
                                                                                               134           132
                                                                                                             131
                     Tab. 2. Population #1, Reproductive Population with Infant Sacrifice

    Over fifteen generations of reproductive adults, infant sacrifice would have important
effects on population growth when compared to the population without sacrifice. Five sacri-
fices per year results in a loss of more than 1200 reproductive adults. Ten sacrifices per year
creates a difference of more than 2500. At fifteen sacrifices per year, the population grows at
a rate that would be expected of the average, though unhealthy, population in the ancient
Mediterranean (as seen in Population #3 below).
    In the first year of the first cohort of generation one, five, ten and fifteen sacrifices per year
represent 2%, 4%, and 6% sacrifice rates of infants brought to term. Though some scholars
have tried to suggest that infanticide rates in antiquity were quite high, this model illustrates
that the healthiest ancient population could only sustain annual infanticide rates of 6.8%. At
any higher percentage, the population would begin to contract.58
    The above population, however, is unlikely to be representative of colonial spaces in the
Iron Age Mediterranean or any other space or time period in the ancient world. It is pre-
sented here solely to represent the effects that even limited infanticide would have on an ab-
solute upper bound population. In reality, populations in antiquity would have experienced
much higher subadult mortality rates.
    In Population #2, I model increased infant (30%) and childhood (28%) mortality rates
compared to Population #1. To compensate, couples have increased their fertility from Popu-
lation #1. In addition, I have added a juvenile mortality rate for ages 5-20 of 8%.59




   58
       Garnand et al. have argued that “premodern societies with high rates of infant mortality nevertheless
could have tolerated a relatively high rate of selective female infanticide, up to 33%.” (2012-2013), 214. For this
debate in Roman history, Engels (1980) and Harris (1982).
    59
       8% juvenile mortality is a rounded average taken from the countries with the lowest life expectancies at
birth in the WHO Life Tables from 1999. Lopez et al. (2009).


                                                       14
                       Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs




         Fig. 3. Population #1, Effects of Infant Sacrifice on Population Growth




Year   Adults     Newborn         One         Two       Three        Four          Five   Twenty
  1     2000
  2     1980           320
  3     1960           317         224
  4     1940           314         222        190
  5     1921           310         220        189         171
  6     1902           307         217        187         170         166
  7     1883           304         215        184         168         165          163
  8     1864           301         213        183         166         163          162      150
  9     1845           298         211        181         165         161          160      149
 10     1827           295         209        179         163         160          158      147
 11     1809           292         207        178         161         158          157      145
 12     1791           289         204        176         160         156          155      144
 13     1773           287         202        173         158         155          153      143
 14     1755           284         201        172         156         153          152      141
 15     1737           281         199        171         155         151          150      140
                       278         197        169         154         150          148      138
                                   195        167         152         149          147      136
                                              166         150         147          146      135
                                                          149         146          144      134
                                                                      145          143      132
                                                                                   142      132
                                                                                            131

                Tab. 3. Reproductive Model of Population #2, Generation #1.




                                            15
                                          Nathan L. Pilkington




                          Fig. 4. Population #2, Reproductive Population Growth

   Population #2 may be thought of as a possible demographic picture. The population
averages better than 0.45% annual growth, high for antiquity. Ober has recently argued
that Greece in this period achieved annual growth rates slightly higher than Population #2,
as part of a general efflorescence. I would agree that such growth rates, if ever achieved in
antiquity, were most likely to have occurred during the 8th- 6th centuries BCE. Colonization
movements, of the scale achieved by the Greeks and Phoenicians, should result in lower po-
pulation densities for both the parent city and its new foundation. Lower density tends to
result in lighter disease loads as well as increased land and decreased labor supply, all parts of
the recipe for sustained population growth.60




                  Fig. 5. Population #2, Effects of Infant Sacrifice on Population Growth.


   60
       Ober (2015), 2: “Efflorescence is characterized by more people (demographic growth) living at higher
levels of welfare (per capita growth) and by cultural production at a higher level”


                                                    16
                               Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

    Now, I add infant sacrifice to Population #2. The population without infant sacrifice
achieves 105% population growth. Five sacrifices per year reduce growth to only 67%. Ten
sacrifices per year result in only 31% growth. At fifteen sacrifices per year, the colony begins
to contract. In the first cohort of births in generation one, five, ten and fifteen sacrifices re-
present 1.56%, 3.12%, and 4.68% sacrifice rates of infants brought to term. In sum, even for
a population in efflorescence, a condition achieved in only a few centuries of ancient history,
if ever, a limited amount of infanticide would significantly alter the demographic growth of
Phoenician colonies.
    Finally, I model a population in the most likely ancient context possible. Population #3
has elevated adult dropout rates of 2% compared to 1% in the earlier populations. In addi-
tion, I have elevated infant mortality rates to 35% and childhood mortality rates in year four
(from 3% to 5%) to create a more realistic disease environment. I have also increased fertility.
The juvenile mortality rate is the same.

      Year     Adults    Newborn          One        Two       Three        Four     Five   Twenty
        1       2000
        2       1960           365
        3       1921           358        237
        4       1883           351        233         201
        5       1845           344        228         198        181
        6       1808           337        224         194        178         172
        7       1772           330        219         190        175         169     169
        8       1737           323        215         186        171         166     166      155
        9       1702           317        210         183        167         162     163      153
       10       1668           311        206         179        165         159     159      150
       11       1635           304        202         175        161         157     156      146
       12       1602           298        198         172        158         153     154      144
       13       1570           292        194         168        155         150     150      142
       14       1539           287        190         165        151         147     147      138
       15       1508           281        187         162        149         143     144      135
                               275        183         159        146         142     140      132
                                          179         156        143         139     139      129
                                                      152        140         136     136      128
                                                                 137         133     133      125
                                                                             130     130      122
                                                                                     127      120
                                                                                              117



                        Tab. 4. Reproductive Model of Population #3, Generation #1




                                                   17
                                        Nathan L. Pilkington




                        Fig. 6. Population #3, Reproductive Population Growth



    Population #3 illustrates the much slower growth predicted by recent studies of ancient
demography, 0.127% annually. In this environment, the population is too unhealthy to sa-
crifice ten or more infants per year. Therefore, I have reduced the number of sacrifices to two,
four or six per year. For this population, a small increase in infant mortality, even as few as
two sacrifices per year, begins to hamper population growth. Without infant sacrifice, the
population achieves 28% growth. Two and four sacrifices per year reduce growth to 17% and
8%, respectively. The population contracts at six sacrifices per year, shrinking by 4.7%. Two
sacrifices in the first year of the first birth cohort represents a 0.54% sacrifice rate, whereas
four and six sacrifices constitute 1.09% and 1.64% sacrifice rates.




                 Fig. 7. Population #3, Effects of Infant Sacrifice on Population Growth




                                                  18
                                  Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

    The foregoing models illustrate a simple point. Whether a population is improbably
healthy, in efflorescence, or average, even limited infant sacrifice has significant long-term
consequences on population growth. Further, the models indicate that unhealthy popula-
tions begin to contract at much lower annual rates of infant sacrifice than healthy popula-
tions. Population #1 is able to sustain rates of infant sacrifice of 6.8% per annum. By contrast,
Population #3 begins to shrink at an infant sacrifice rate of 1.64%. Under the assumption
that most Phoenician colonial populations inhabited the range between Populations #2 and
#3, one should expect to find a limited amount of growth at Phoenician colonies practicing
infant sacrifice absent regular immigration.
    Immigration, however, only creates long-term growth in Phoenician colonies when the
new adults are reproductive age or if not already have three or more children. Reproductive
age adults die in these colonies every year. As such, the first wave of immigrants in any year
does not increase the population immediately. If Phoenician colonies began with 2000 inha-
bitants under the demographic regime of model Population #3, the first 40 adult immigrants
every year are merely making up for reproductive aged mortality within the colony.
    If the immigration rate were 40 reproductive adults per year, and thus held the reproduc-
tive population stable at 2000 adults, Population #3 would grow from 2000 to 2325 after the
first generation. If spread over the well-known tophet colonies of the central Mediterranean
(Carthage, Mozia, Sulcis, and Tharros), 160 reproductive age immigrants per year could have
contributed to substantial population growth at these colonies without any practice of infant
sacrifice. Though 160 adults per year appears small on initial inspection, it would indicate a
massive population movement over a 225 year period, 36,000 adult immigrants just to these
four colonies.61
    To conclude this section, I, therefore, turn to the evidence of Mozia in order to demons-
trate the practical application of the models above. Many scholars have argued that Mozia,
from its foundation, experienced a population explosion. In a recent publication, Nigro es-
timated, using the evidence of settlement contexts and necropoleis, that the colony began
with 140 inhabitants in 800 BCE and grew to 1300 inhabitants by 750 BCE, a 16% annual
growth rate. As such a rate of population growth is well beyond the reproductive potential
of ancient populations, Nigro concludes that this initial, explosive phase of growth at Mozia
resulted from very high rates of immigration. From 750-675 BCE, growth slowed as Mozia
reached its carrying capacity and rates of immigration decreased. The population of 1300 in
750 BCE only increased to 1500-1600 inhabitants by 675 BCE, a 0.2-0.3% annual growth
rate. Over the next three centuries, agricultural land on Mozia was slowly converted to urban
occupation. Prior to its destruction in 397 BCE, the archaeology of the site reveals densely
packed homes, suggesting high population density. Using the average house and extrapola-
ting for the whole island, Di Mauro et al. calculated that Mozia could have maintained a
population of nearly 18,000 inhabitants with two level houses. However, streets and other
   61
       Estimating immigration rates is difficult for ancient sites. For example, pottery suggests Carthage was
widely connected early in its history, offering regular opportunities for individuals to arrive at the site. Transport
amphorae recovered from the 8th and early 7th centuries indicate that its primary external trading partners were
in Sardinia (38% of all transport amphora recovered), southern Spain (15%), central Italy (8%), and the Levant
(7%). Docter (2008) and Docter (2009); Docter, Bechtold (2010); Amadori et al. (2017). Further, scholars have
often argued for periods or waves of Phoenician settlement in the central and western Mediterranean.: pre-col-
onization, initial colonization, and secondary colonization. Pellicer Catalan (2006) and Van Dommelen (1998).
Secondary colonization movements, such as those seen around Phoenician colonies in Sardinia are occasionally
ascribed to immigrants from the Near East, fleeing a tumultuous political situation with the rise of Assyrian
imperialism in the 8th century. Fletcher (2006).


                                                         19
                                           Nathan L. Pilkington


public spaces limited the area available for housing. Archaeological excavation has revealed
several public spaces (sacred pool, tophet, temples, etc…), suggesting that Mozia more likely
had a population of 10,000-14,000 with two level homes. Nigro has recently estimated its
highest population at 12,000, in line with mathematical extrapolations.62
    To model Mozia’s growth over fifteen generations of reproductive adults, I begin with the
colony in 750 BCE, after its period of rapid growth. Mozia #1 uses a model similar to Popu-
lation #2 described above. The primary difference is that I have added a low level of annual
reproductive age adult immigration into Mozia #1. The model begins with 433 reproductive
adults, who make up one-third of the total population of 1300, as indicated by Nigro’s es-
timates. Over the next 225 years, the reproductive population grows to 835, while the total
population increases to 2505. Additionally, the population estimates derived from this model
agree with Nigro’s estimates of population growth at Mozia from 750-675 BCE. In his re-
construction, the population reached 1500-1600 inhabitants by 675 BCE. Here, the model
indicates a population of 1551 for that period.




                              Fig. 8. Mozia #1, Reproductive Population Growth




                                  Fig. 9. Mozia #1, Total Population Growth

   62
        Nigro (2022); Di Mauro et al. (2014); Aubet (2001), 232; Famà (1997).


                                                     20
                             Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

   The addition of infant sacrifice into this population has important effects on its growth. As
noted previously, quantitative studies of urns at Mozia suggest a sacrifice rate of one or two
infants per year. Thus I model both rates for Mozia #1. The total population without sacrifice
reaches 2505. One sacrifice per year results in a total population of 1905. At two sacrifices per
year, Mozia’s total population only increases to 1398. The population without sacrifice achie-
ves nearly 93% growth over the period. By contrast, one sacrifice per year reduces growth to
only 47%, whereas two sacrifices per year result in only 8% growth. One sacrifice in the first
year of the first birth cohort constitutes a 1.26% sacrifice rate, whereas two sacrifices repre-
sent a 2.53% sacrifice rate.




                   Fig. 10. Mozia #1, Effects of Infant Sacrifice, Reproductive Adults




                    Fig.11. Mozia #1, Effects of Infant Sacrifice on Total Population


   In sum, at Mozia, a relatively healthy population with regular immigration, averaging
0.41% annual growth over a 225 year period without sacrifice, could sustain a single infant
sacrifice per year. However, a singe sacrifice per year would reduce the population’s annual
growth rate to 0.20%. Further, at one sacrifice per year, the population at Mozia would have


                                                  21
                                     Nathan L. Pilkington


only grown to 1419 by 675 BCE, a hundred or more inhabitants fewer than estimated by
Nigro and the model above without sacrifice.
    If Mozia were more unhealthy, even a single sacrifice per year was unsustainable. In Mozia
#2, I develop a model similar to Population #3 discussed above. It has elevated infant mor-
tality rates and assumes regular immigration in order to offset adult mortality in the colony.
In this second population model, the colony begins with 433 reproductive adults and 1300
total inhabitants. Due to its poorer health, the reproductive population grows to 612 and the
total population to 1836, an average annual growth rate of .18%.




                        Fig. 12. Mozia #2, Reproductive Population Growth




                            Fig. 13. Mozia #2, Total Population Growth

   The introduction of a single infant sacrifice per year in this population causes population
growth to cease. The population becomes stable at 1305 inhabitants after the first generation,
achieving a 0.0017% growth rate over 225 years. Therefore, if the population at Mozia were
growing at an average rate for antiquity, 0.18%, and a single sacrifice per year occurred of
a newborn infant, no archaeological evidence would exist for population growth at Mozia,
unless immigration rates were much higher than those included in the model.


                                               22
                                Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs




                       Fig. 14. Mozia #2, Effects of Infant Sacrifice on Total Population
    Taken collectively, the demographic models indicate that the rate of urban and population
growth suggested by the archaeological evidence at Mozia would require powerful evidence of
decreased infant mortality rates and substantial evidence of regular immigration rates in order
to sustain a single infant sacrifice, though even under these conditions infant sacrifice still has
substantial consequences. More importantly, the same evidence of population growth during
this period appears at other sites with tophets: Carthage, Sulcis, and Tharros.63 Thus all of the
archaeological evidence for tophet colonies presently indicates sustained population growth
coupled with physical expansion.

    4. A Path Forward?
    As scholars have demonstrated for three decades, little about the practices recorded in the
Greco-Roman sources coheres with the archaeological evidence recovered at tophets. Rather
than continue that debate, I have tried to move the discussion to new evidence, demography,
which offers the potential for a direct interpretation of the archaeological evidence absent
source narratives. To conclude, I want to stress that unlike the ancient sources, subadult skele-
tons from tophet colonies can provide a more definitive answer to the demographic problem
of the tophet.64
    Though uncommon, excavations have uncovered progressively more infant, child, and
juvenile burials outside of tophets. Certain skeletons are also not cremated.65 As I have shown
in an earlier publication, a sufficient number of skeletons, properly measured for length, age,
and health status, can allow for the relative estimation of infant, child, and juvenile health
though the study of comparative anthropometry. Further, using comparative anthropometry,

   63
       Kaufman et al. (2016); Niemeyer et al. (2009); Docter (2007); Chelbi et al. (2006); Docter et al. (2006),
39-41; Niemeyer (1989); Guirguis (2005); Van Dommelen (1998) and (1997).
    64
       Steckel (2009), 8: “The most common historical evidence, and indeed much modern data, consists of
adult heights. Human growth, however, unfolds over some 20 years, from conception to maturity; there are
sensitive periods such as early childhood and adolescence; a multitude of socioeconomic variables potential-
ly operate at each age; and genetic conditions may interact with environmental ones. Adult heights merely
summarize the final result, and if this is all that’s available (as opposed to longitudinal height on height and
socioeconomic conditions at each age), then researchers face a huge identification problem in which there are
far more determinants than outcomes.”
    65
       Orsingher (2018) for the evidence at Mozia.


                                                      23
                                     Nathan L. Pilkington


I argued that Roman populations appear to most closely match the models for Population #3
and Mozia #2 described above. For infants and children, such a finding means that length-
for-age in these populations is -2 to -3 standard deviations removed from modern growth
reference populations.66 As shown above, these model populations were too unhealthy to
artificially increase rates of infant mortality through sacrifice.
    Therefore, to achieve the substantiated urban growth at Phoenician colonies and practice
infant sacrifice, skeletal evidence should indicate a subadult population that is no more than
-1 – 1.5 SD removed from modern growth reference populations, similar to Populations #1
or #2 and Mozia #1 above. These populations would still suffer important reductions in po-
pulation growth, if infant sacrifice were practiced. However, a healthy subadult population at
least makes a limited practice of infant sacrifice possible if not plausible.




   66
        Pilkington (2013).


                                             24
                                  Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

   Bibliography


Alt A. (1950), Die phönikischen Inschriften von Karatepe, Die Welt des Orients, 1, 272-287.
Amadasi Guzzo M. (1967), Le Inscrizioni Fenicie e Puniche delle Colonie in Occidente, Rome.
Amadasi Guzzo M., Zamora Lopéz J. (2012-13), The epigraphy of the tophet, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul
  Vicino Oriente antico, 29-30, 159-192.
Amadori M.L., Del Vais C., Fermo P., Pallante P. (2017) Archaeometric researches on the provenance of Medi-
  terranean Archaic Phoenician and Punic pottery, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24, 13921–
  13949.
Aounallah S., Brouquier- Reddé V., Abidi H., Romdhane B., Bonifay M., Hadded F., Hafiane Nouri S., de
   Larminat S., Mukai T., Poupon F., Zech-Matterne V. (2020), L’aire sacrée de Baal Hammon – Saturne à
   Dougga, Antiquités Africaines 56, 245-273.
Aubet M.E. (2001), The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies, and Trade, Cambridge.
Babbitt F. (1928) [trans.], Plutarch, Moralia, Volume II, Cambridge.
Ben Jerbania I., Ferjaoui A., Peña V., Redissi T., Jendoubi K., Maddahi N., Khalfalli W. (2020), Nouvelles
   fouilles dans le sanctuaire de Ba’l Hamon à Carthage, in Un Viaje entre el Oriente y el Occidente del Mediter-
   ráneo v.III (MYTRA 5), Celestino Pérez S., Rodríguez González E. [eds.], Merida, 1141-1156.
Bénichou-Safar H. (1981), A propos des ossements humains du Tophet de Carthage, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 9,
   5-9.
Bénichou-Safar H. (1988), Sur l’incinération des enfants aux tophets de Carthage et de Sousse, Revue de l’His-
   toire des Religions, 205, 57-67.
Bénichou-Safar H. (1993), Le rite d’entrée sous le joug. Des stèles de Carthage à l’Ancien Testament, Revue de
   l’Histoire des Religions, 210, 131-143.
Bonnet C. (2011), On gods and earth: the tophet and the construction of a new identity in Punic Carthage, in
   Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Gruen E. [ed.], Los Angeles, 373-387.
Brown S. (1991), Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context,
   Sheffield.
Chelbi F., Maraoui Telmini B., Docter R. (2006), Découverte d’une nécropole du huitième siècle av. J.-C. à
   Carthage Bir Massouda. Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles de l’Institut National du Patrimoine (Tunis) et
   l’Universite du Gand, CEDAC Carthage Bulletin, 22, 13-25.
Ciasca A. (1971), Sul tofet di Mozia, Sicilia Archeologica, 4, 10-15.
Ciasca A. (1973), Mozia (Sicilia): il tofet. Campagne 1971-1972, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 1, 94-98.
Ciasca A. (1992), Mozia: sguardo d’insieme sul Tofet, Vicino Oriente, 8, 113-155.
Cooke G. (1903), A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions, Oxford.
CIS, Corpus Inscriptionum Semitcarum Pars I (1881-1962), Paris.
D’ Andrea B. (2014), I tofet del Nord Africa dall’età arcaica all’età romana (VIII sec. a.C. – II sec. d.C.), Pisa.
D’Andrea B. (2018), Bambini nel “Limbo”: Dati e Proposte interpretive sui Tofet Fenici e Punici, Rome.
D’Andrea B. (2021), The tophets of North Africa between the 4th and the 1st centuries BC: practices of belong-
   ing, phenomena of innovation and strategies of appropriation. in Transformations and Crisis in the Mediter-
   ranean during the 5th-2nd centuries BCE, Garbati G., Pedrazzi T. [eds.], Rome, 167-188.
D’Andrea B., Giardino S. (2011), “Il tofet: dove e perché”: alla origini dell’identità fenicia, Vicino & Medio
   Oriente, 15, 133-157.
Day J. (1989), Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament, Cambridge.



                                                         25
                                             Nathan L. Pilkington


Di Mauro D., Alfonsi L., Sapia V., Urbini S. (2014), A neighborhood revealed by geophysical prospection:
   an example of urbanization at the Phoenician–Punic settlement of Mozia (western Sicily, Italy), Journal of
   Applied Geophysics, 104, 114-120.
Docter R. (2007), Published settlement contexts of Punic Carthage, Carthage Studies, 1, 37-76.
Docter R. (2008), New radiocarbon dates from Carthage: bridging the gap between history and archaeology?,
  in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, Sagona C. [ed.], Leuven, 379-422
Docter R. (2009), Carthage and its Hinterland, in Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen, Helas S., Marzoli D.
  [eds.], Mainz, 179-189.
Docter R., Chelbi F., Maraoui Telmini B., Bechtold B., Ben Romdhane H., Declercq V., De Schacht T., De-
  weirdt E., De Wulf A., Fersi L., Frey-Kupper S., Garsallah S., Joosten I., Hans Koens, Jalel Mabrouk, Taou-
  fik Redisssi, Roudesli Chebbi S., Ryckbosch K., Schmidt K., Taverniers B., Van Kerckhove J., Verdonck L.
  (2006), Carthage Bir Massouda: second preliminary report on the bilateral excavations of Ghent University
  and the Institut National du Patrimoine (2003-2004), BaBesch, 81, 37-89.
Docter R., Bechtold B. (2010), Transport amphora from Carthage: an overview, In Motya and The Phoenician
  Ceramic Repertoire between the Levant and the West 9th - 6th century BC, Nigro L. [ed.], Rome, 85- 116.
Donner H., Röllig, W. (1962-64), Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften, Wiesbaden.
Dussaud R. (1946), Précisions épigraphiques sur les sacrifices puniques d’enfants, Comptes-rendus des séances de
  l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 90, 371-387.
Eissfeldt, O. (1935), Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch, Halle.
Engels D. (1980), The problem of female infanticide in the Greco-Roman world, Classical Philology, 75, 112-
   120.
Ennabli A. (1987), La campagne internationale de sauvegarde de Carthage. Fouilles et recherches archéologiques
   1973-1987. Premiers bilans, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 131,
   407-438.
Famà M. (1997), Gli scavi recenti nell’abitato di Mozia: nuove prospettive di indagine alla luce dei primi risul-
   tati della ricerca, in Seconde Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’area Elima, (Gibellina, 22–26 ottobre 1994),
   Atti, Pisa, 643-654.
Février J.-G. (1953), Molchomor, Revue de l’histoire des Religions, 143, 8-18.
Fletcher R. (2006), The cultural biography of a Phoenician mushroom-lipped jug, Oxford Journal of Archaeol-
    ogy, 25, 173-194.
Garnand B., Stager L., Greene J. (2012-2013), Infants as offerings: palaeodemographic patterns and tophet
   burial, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico, 29-30, 193-222.
Geer R. (1954) [trans.], Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Volume X: Books 19.66-20, Cambridge.
González Wagner C. (1991), El sacrificio del Moloch en Fenicia : una respuesta cultural adaptativa a la presion
  demografica, in Atti del II congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, Roma, 411-416.
Guirguis M. (2005), Storia degli studi e degli scavi a Sulky e a Monte Sirai, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 33, 13-29.
Harden D. (1937), The pottery from the Precinct of Tanit at Salammbo, Carthage, Iraq, 4, 59-90.
Harris W. (1982), The theoretical possibility of extensive infanticide in the Greco- Roman world, Classical
   Quarterly, 32, 114-116.
Heider G. (1985), The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment, New Haven.
Hin S. (2013), The Demography of Roman Italy. Population Dynamics in an Ancient Conquest Society 201 BCE –
   CE 14, Cambridge.
Hurst H., Stager L. (1978), A metropolitan landscape: the late Punic port of Carthage, World Archaeology, 9,
  334-346.
Jacoby F. (1929), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Part II B, Berlin.


                                                        26
                                   Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

Kaufman B., Docter R., Fischer C., Chelbi F., Maraoui Telmini, B. (2016), Ferrous metallurgy from the Bir
   Massouda metallurgical precinct at Phoenician and Punic Carthage and the beginning of the North African
   Iron Age, Journal of Archaeological Science, 71, 33-50.
Lipiński E. (1988), Sacrifices d’enfants à Carthage et dans le monde sémitique oriental, in Studia Phoenicia VI:
   Carthago, Lipiński E. [ed.], Leuven, 151-185.
Lopez A., Salomon J., Ahmad O., Murray C., Mafat D., (2009), Life Tables for 191 Countries: Data, Methods
   and Results (=GPE Discussion Paper Series 9), Geneva.
Melchiorri V. (2009), Le tophet de Sulci (S. Antioco, Sardaigne). État des études et perspectives de la recherche,
   Ugarit-Forschungen, 41, 509-524.
Moscati S. (1987), Découvertes phéniciennes à Tharros, Comptes-rendus de Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions
  et Belles-Lettres, 131, 483-503.
Moscati S. (1987b), Il sacrificio punico dei fanciulli: realta or invenzione?, Rendiconti dell’Accademia dei Lincei,
  261, 3–15
Mura S. (2022), Ethical considerations in narratives of death: the case of the tophet, Kleos, 5, 19-43.
Niemeyer H. (1989), Los comienzos de Cartago y la expansión fenicia en el área Mediterránea, Gerión, 7, 11-40.
Niemeyer H., Docter R., Schmidt K. (2009) Die Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus von
   Karthago, in Phönizisches und Punisches Städtewesen, Helas S., Marzoli D. [eds.], Mainz, 171-178.
Nigro L. (2022), Motya, the rise of a port-city: demography and colonial models in comparison, in Comparing
   Greek Colonies, Colombi C., Parisi V., Dally O., Guggisberg M., Piras G. [eds.], Berlin, 335-356.
Ober J. (2015), The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece, Princeton.
Oldfather C. (1950) [trans.], Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Volume V: Books 12.41-13, Cambridge.
Oldfather C. (1954) [trans.], Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Volume VI: Books 14-15.19, Cambridge.
Orsingher A. (2015), Vessels in tophet Sanctuaries: the archaic evidence and the Levantine connection, Bulletin
   d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, 10, 561-590.
Orsingher A. (2018), Forever young: rethinking infancy and childhood at Motya, in From Invisible to Visible.
   New Methods and Data for the Archaeology of Infant and Child Burials in Pre-Roman Italy and Beyond (=Stud-
   ies in Mediterranean Archaeology, CLIX), Tabolli J. [ed.], Nicosia, 197-206.
Pellicer Catalan M. (2006), Momentos precoloniales y precolonizacion en Iberia: nuevos datos, Rivista di Studi
    Fenici, 34, 9-37.
Pilkington N. (2013), Growing up Roman: infant mortality and reproductive development, Journal of Interdis-
    ciplinary History, 44, 1-36.
Quinn J (2012-13), Tophets in the ‘Punic World’, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico, 29-30,
  23-48
Quinn J. (2018), In Search of the Phoenicians, Princeton.
Répertoire d’épigraphie Sémitique (1900-), Paris.
Ribichini S. (1987), Il Tofet e il Sacrificio dei Fanciulli, Sassari.
Ribichini,S. (1990), Il sacrificio di fanciulli nel mondo punico: testimonianze e problemi, in Riti Funerari e di
   Olocausto nella Sardegna Fenicia e Punica. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Cagliari, 45-66.
Ribichini S. (2020), Saisons du Molk, in Cartagine, il Mediterraneo Centro-occidentale e la Sardegna. Società,
   Economia e Cultura Materiale tra Fenici e Autoctoni. Studi in Onore di Piero Bartoloni, Guirguis M., Muscuso
   S., Pla Orquín R. [eds.], Sassari, 237-258.
Richard J. (1961), Etude Medico-legale des Urnes Sacrificielles Puniques et de leur Contenu, PhD Thesis. Universite
   de Lille: France.
Ruiz Cabrero L. (2007), El Sacrificio Molk entre los Fenicio-púnicos: Cuestiones Demográficas y Ecológicas, PhD
   Thesis. Universidad Complutense de Madrid: Spain.


                                                            27
                                             Nathan L. Pilkington


Sallares R. (1991), The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World, Ithaca.
Scheidel W. (2001), Roman age structure: evidence and models, Journal of Roman Studies, 91, 1-26.
Scheidel, W. (2007), Demography, in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, Scheidel, W.,
   Morris I., Saller P. [eds.], Cambridge, 38-86.
Schwartz J., Houghton F., Bondioli L., Macchiarelli R. (2010), Skeletal remains from Punic Carthage do not
   support the systematic sacrifice of infants, PLoS ONE, 5, e9177.
Schwartz J., Houghton F., Bondioli L., Macchiarelli R. (2012), Bones, teeth and estimating age of perinates:
   Carthaginian infant sacrifice revisited, Antiquity, 86, 738-745.
Schwartz J., Houghton F., Bondioli L., Macchiarelli R. (2017), Two tales of one city: data, inference, and Car-
   thaginian infant sacrifice, Antiquity, 91, 442-454.
Shaw B. (2001), Raising and killing children: two Roman myths, Mnemosyne, 54, 31-77.
Simonetti A. (1983), Sacrifici umani e uccisioni rituali nel mondo fenicio-punico: Il contributo delle fonti let-
   terarie, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 11, 91-111.
Smith P., Avishai G., Greene J., Stager L. (2011), Aging cremated infants: the problem of sacrifice at the tophet
   at Carthage, Antiquity, 85, 859- 874.
Smith P., Stager L., Greene J., Avishai, G. (2013), Cemetery or sacrifice? Infant burials at the Carthage tophet,
   Antiquity, 87, 1191-1199.
Stager L. (2014), Rites of Spring in the Carthaginian Tophet, Leiden.
Stager L., Wolf S. (1984), Child sacrifice at Carthage: religious rite or population control, Biblical Archaeology
    Review, 10, 30–51.
Steckel R. (2009), Heights and human welfare: recent developments and new directions, Explorations in Econo-
    mic History, 46, 1-23.
Suder W. (1991), Tophet à Carthage. Quelques remarques sur le rite funéraire et les problèmes démographiques,
   in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Roma, 407-409.
Vance D. (1994), Literary sources for the history of Palestine and Syria: the Phoenician inscriptions, The Biblical
   Archaeologist, 57, 110-120.
Van Dommelen P. (1997), Some reflections on urbanization in a colonial context: West Central Sardinia in the
   7th to 5th century BC, in Urbanization in the Mediterranean in the 9th to 6th Centuries BC (=Acta Hypeborea
   7), Andersen H., Horsnaes H., Houby-Nielsen S., Rathje A. [eds.], Copenhagen, 243- 278.
Van Dommelen P. (1998), On Colonial Grounds: A Comparative Study of Colonialism and Rural Settlement in the
   First Millennium BC West Central Sardinia, Leiden.
Warmington E. (1935), Remains of Old Latin I: Ennius and Caecilius, Cambridge.
Watson J. (1853) [trans.], M. Junianus Justinus, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, London.
Weinfeld M. (1972), The worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and its background, Ugarit Forschun-
   gen, 4, 133-154.
Welles B. (1963) [trans.], Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Volume VIII: Books 16.66-17, Cambridge.
Xella P. (1991), Baal Hammon : Recherches sur l’identité et l’histoire d’un Dieu Phénico-punique, Rome.
Xella, P. (2009), Sacrifici di bambini nel mondo fenicio e punico nelle testimonianze in lingua greca e Latina,
    Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico, 26, 59-100.
Xella P. [ed.] (2012-13), The Tophet in the Phoenician Mediterranean. (=Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino
    Oriente Antico 29-30).
Xella P, Quinn J., Melchiorri V., Van Dommelen P. (2013), Phoenician bones of contention, Antiquity, 87,
    1199-1207.




                                                       28
                             Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs

Riassunto /Abstract


   Abstract: Abstract: Due to recent osteoarchaeological publications, prominent historians, archae-
ologists and osteologists have reignited the debate over the practice of infant and child sacrifice at
Phoenician sites in the central Mediterranean. In all previous studies, including osteoarchaeological
approaches, the debate has been conducted on terms established by the Greco-Roman sources. Here,
I move away from those sources and suggest a series of demographic models in order to understand
better the effects of infanticide on population growth at Phoenician colonies in the Early Iron Age
central Mediterranean.

   Parole chiave: Tofet; Sacrificio di neonati e bambini; Colonie fenicie; Cartagine

   Keywords: Tophet; Infant and Child Sacrifice; Phoenician Colonies; Carthage




   Come citare questo articolo / How to cite this paper
   Nathan L. Pilkington, Forbidden to Sacrifice Humans or Eat Dogs: Revisiting the Tophet
Debate though a Demographic Lens, CaSteR 8 (2023), doi: 10.13125/caster/5532, http://ojs.
unica.it/index.php/caster/




                                                 29
