For those of you interested in ancient history or archaeology, the following may be relevant to your interests:
New research has tendency to be over-hyped. A recent study of a Carthaginian infant burial site (a Tophet) has refuted the proposition by some scholars that all the infants buried at Tophets were sacrificed (here is the article). Osteological analysis of the remains of infants has shown that 20 percent of those found died before birth, and thus could not have been sacrificed. It seems more likely that Tophets were used as more general burial sites.
However, this does little to refute the general historical evidence for child sacrifice at Carthage. Kleitarchos, Diodorus, the Old Testament, and some inscriptions all support child sacrifice at Carthage. Schwartz, the author of the article, rightly limits his conclusions: "Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants." However, as so often happens, studies limited in scope are taken too far. One article has gone so far as to declare that Schwarts' research refutes "millennia-long claims of mass infant sacrifice in ancient Carthage." This just isn't the case. Nothing says that all of those children buried died of natural causes. Moreover, some sacrifices could have been buried elsewhere. Writers in the media and university have a responsibility to remain skeptical of new claims and opinions. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to blow new research out of proportion and make sweeping claims about the past. Orthodox perspectives should not be quickly dismissed, and new research should not be overstated.
No comments:
Post a Comment