Plus a Roman source, discussing a pre-Punic War sacrifical event: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/20a*.html
Edit - This fits with the attitude described in your article above: "Dr Quinn added: 'We think of it as a slander because we view it in our own terms. But people looked at it differently 2,500 years ago.
'Indeed, contemporary Greek and Roman writers tended to describe the practice as more of an eccentricity or historical oddity – they're not actually very critical.
'We should not imagine that ancient people thought like us and were horrified by the same things.'
I agree, this is to push back against the notion that it's slander written by enemies.
After going through the archaeological evidence, Richard Miles gives the following conclusion in Carthage Must Be Destroyed (published in 2010, so before some of the findings above) :
The argument that the tophet was some kind of cemetery for children is undermined by the fact that the ratio of children's burials found in cemeteries in Punic Carthage correlates well with the comparative evidence from elsewhere in the ancient world. In fact, the lack of recorded remains may well be the result of archaeologists simply not recording small and often badly preserved children's bones. Contemporary Greek writers thought that the Carthaginians were performing child sacrifice, and the archaeological evidence means that their claims cannot merely be brushed aside as anti-Punic slander.
The conclusion to be drawn is that during periods of great crisis the Carthaginians and other western Phoenicians did sacrifice their own children for the benefit of their families and community . . .
This from page 72, the full discussion is pp. 68-73.
There's a story in Herodotus of the Persian king giving a woman the choice of which of her family members should be spared. She immediately says, "My brother." The king sez, "What? Why not your children? Or your husband?" She responds, "Look, I can have more children, and I can get another husband. But my parents are dead. I'm never getting another brother."
Interestingly Antigone from the Greek play had the same mindset. She reasons that she can have another husband and other children, but with her parents dead she cannot have another brother. She buries her brother, which was made illegal, and reasons that if the law had forbade her from burying a husband or children that she could have other husbands and children, but with her parents dead she could not have another brother.
Also I do find it somewhat compelling that the Jewish and Graeco-Roman sources both accuse Carthage of child sacrifice given their being separate groups.
As well as the fact that the Jewish sources reference Moloch and Baal which sound very similar to words carved on the sites of the alleged sacrifices
More on the epigraphical evidence: https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/197736/3/epigraphy_topet.pdf . I haven't read your second link yet so there may be some overlap, but they both look interesting.
Plus a Roman source, discussing a pre-Punic War sacrifical event: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/20a*.html
Edit - This fits with the attitude described in your article above: "Dr Quinn added: 'We think of it as a slander because we view it in our own terms. But people looked at it differently 2,500 years ago.
'Indeed, contemporary Greek and Roman writers tended to describe the practice as more of an eccentricity or historical oddity – they're not actually very critical.
'We should not imagine that ancient people thought like us and were horrified by the same things.'
why would they be after all the romans practiced human sacrifice themselves
I agree, this is to push back against the notion that it's slander written by enemies.
After going through the archaeological evidence, Richard Miles gives the following conclusion in Carthage Must Be Destroyed (published in 2010, so before some of the findings above) :
This from page 72, the full discussion is pp. 68-73.
Lol can you imagine. “I like billy but tbh I could live without him.”
There's a story in Herodotus of the Persian king giving a woman the choice of which of her family members should be spared. She immediately says, "My brother." The king sez, "What? Why not your children? Or your husband?" She responds, "Look, I can have more children, and I can get another husband. But my parents are dead. I'm never getting another brother."
she should say "look mate you can either kill my whole family or be judgemental"
Interestingly Antigone from the Greek play had the same mindset. She reasons that she can have another husband and other children, but with her parents dead she cannot have another brother. She buries her brother, which was made illegal, and reasons that if the law had forbade her from burying a husband or children that she could have other husbands and children, but with her parents dead she could not have another brother.
Thanks for reminding me - I love that play dearly and I don't know why my mind went to Herodotus first.
Yeah that's what the sources I found said too.
Also I do find it somewhat compelling that the Jewish and Graeco-Roman sources both accuse Carthage of child sacrifice given their being separate groups.
As well as the fact that the Jewish sources reference Moloch and Baal which sound very similar to words carved on the sites of the alleged sacrifices
More on the epigraphical evidence: https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/197736/3/epigraphy_topet.pdf . I haven't read your second link yet so there may be some overlap, but they both look interesting.