|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2016|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 13.10
Valentina Melchiorri / Child Cremation Sanctuaries (“Tophets”) and Early Phoenician Colonisation
COLOFON
BELGISCH HISTORISCH INSTITUUT ROME |
INSTITUT HISTORIQUE BELGE DE ROME
Via Omero 8 - I–00197 ROMA
Tel. +39 06 203 98 631 - Fax +39 06 320 83 61
http://www.bhir-ihbr.be
Postadres | adresse postale | recapito postale |
mailing address
Vlamingenstraat 39 - B-3000 LEUVEN
Tel. +32 16 32 35 00
Redactiesecretaris | Sécretaire de rédaction |
Segretario di redazione | Editorial desk
Prof. dr. Françoise Van Haeperen
[[email protected]]
ISSN 2295-9432
Forum Romanum Belgicum is het digitale forum van het Belgisch Historisch Instituut te Rome, in opvolging van het Bulletin van het BHIR, waarvan de laatste aflevering nr. LXXVII
van jaargang 2007 was.
Forum Romanum Belgicum wil met de digitale formule sneller en frequenter inspelen op de resultaten van het lopend
onderzoek en zo een rol spelen als multidisciplinair onderzoeksforum. Door de digitale formule kan een artikel, paper
(work in progress) of mededeling (aankondiging, boekvoorstelling, colloquium enz.) onmiddellijk gepubliceerd worden. Alle afleveringen zijn ook blijvend te raadplegen op de
website, zodat Forum Romanum Belgicum ook een e-bibliotheek wordt.
Voorstellen van artikels, scripties (work in progress) en mededelingen die gerelateerd zijn aan de missie van het BHIR
kunnen voorgelegd worden aan de redactiesecretaris prof.
dr. Claire De Ruyt ([email protected]). De technische instructies voor artikels en scripties vindt u hier. De
toegelaten talen zijn: Nederlands, Frans, Engels en uiteraard
Italiaans.
Alle bijdragen (behalve de mededelingen) worden voorgelegd aan peer reviewers vooraleer gepubliceerd te worden.
Forum Romanum Belgicum est forum digital de l’Institut Historique Belge à Rome, en succession du Bulletin de l’IHBR,
dont le dernier fascicule a été le n° LXXVII de l’année 2007.
La formule digitale de Forum Romanum Belgicum lui permettra de diffuser plus rapidement les résultats des recherches en cours et de remplir ainsi son rôle de forum de
recherche interdisciplinaire. Grâce à la formule digitale, un
article, une dissertation (work in progress) ou une communication (annonce, présentation d’un livre, colloque etc.)
pourront être publiés sur-le-champ. Tous les fascicules pourront être consultés de manière permanente sur l’internet,
de telle sorte que Forum Romanum Belgicum devienne aussi
une bibliothèque digitale.
Des articles, des notices (work in progress) et des communications en relation avec la mission de l’IHBR peuvent
être soumis à la rédaction: prof.dr. Claire De Ruyt (claire.
[email protected]). Vous trouverez les instructions techniques pour les articles et les notices à Les langues autorisées sont le néerlandais, le français, l’anglais et bien entendu l’italien.
Toutes les contributions (sauf les communications) seront
soumises à des peer reviewers avant d’être publiées.
Child Cremation
Sanctuaries
(“Tophets”) and
Early Phoenician
Colonisation: Markers of Identity?
Valentina Melchiorri*
The topic
TOPHET: A (Biblical) Hebrew term conventionally used to denote Phoenician and Carthaginian cremation child sanctuaries that were widespread throughout the central Mediterranean
(Carthage, Sulci, Motya and later, Tharros, Nora,
Monte Sirai, etc.) from the 8th century BC. The
cremated remains, either of children (mainly infants) or of animals (mostly very young sheep
and goats), or even mixed together, are preserved in morphologically various ceramic urns.
Sometimes votive objects are found together
with these urns, e.g. unguentary vases, jewels
and stelae, either blank or inscribed.
Methodological issues and
general aspects of the evidence
Even today, the tophet is the subject of lively
debate in academic circles. Here, new interpretations and original research perspectives, still in
progress, have been proposed, after many years
of partial and occasionally biased approaches,
largely inadequate in view of the complexity
of such a topic.1 Important progress has been
*
1.
Marie Curie Fellow of the “Gerda Henkel Stiftung”
(Duesseldorf). I am very grateful to the Foundation for the provided support.
For the most recent contributions about general problems (and the various positions, often
different) see Bernardini, “Per una rilettura del
santuario tofet – I”. Bernardini, “Leggere il tofet”.
Ciasca, “Archeologia del tofet”. Xella, “Per un modello interpretativo del tofet”. Bonnet, “On Gods
and Earth”. D’Andrea-Giardino, “Il tofet: dove e
perché”. Quinn, “The Cultures of the Tophet”. Bartoloni, “Appunti sul tofet”. Xella, “Il tophet”. Xella,
“Le tophet comme problème historique”. Xella,
Quinn, Melchiorri and Van Dommelen, “Phoenician
Bones of Contention”.
|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2016|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 13.10
Valentina Melchiorri / Child Cremation Sanctuaries (“Tophets”) and Early Phoenician Colonisation
1. Map of the Mediterranean Sea with location of the main Phoenician diaspora settlements: in evidence the three
earliest tophet sites.
Adapted from Bondì et al., Fenici e Cartaginesi, fig. 3, 95.
made in the last few years regarding both method and the extension of the topic. This is due
to the focus on some ritual aspects and, more
generally, to careful attempts to contextualise
diachronically the tophet within the framework
of the western Mediterranean of the 1st millennium BC.2 For a long time, the tophet was considered as peculiar to the Phoenician colonial world
– particularly, in the central Mediterranean – due
to a lack of archaeological evidence in the Levant
and in the Far West, and also because the tophet has been characteristic of several Phoenician
“colonies” in Northern Africa, Sicily and Sardinia
since their foundation (8th century BC).3 Nevertheless, the approaches to the subject have often
been overgeneralised, and have not always taken into due consideration the range of evidence
according to its different historical phases. What
we conventionally call to be maintained tophet
is a historically complex phenomenon that has
changed significantly over the centuries. Indeed,
the contexts dating back to approximately the 6th
2.
3.
See, in particular, Xella, “Per un «modello interpretativo» del tofet”. Quinn, “The Cultures of the
Tophet”.
Aubet, Tiro y las colonias fenicias de Occidente,
214, 216 («El tofet consituye sin duda la manifestación cultural más caraterísticas de los asentamientos fenicios del Mediterráneo central» […]
«El tofet nos interesa particularmente, porque
constituye en Occidente la entidad socio-religiosa más representativa de los establecimientos
and 5th centuries BC, and, above all, later sanctuaries, dated between the 2nd century BC and the
2nd-3rd centuries AD, are quite different from the
earliest ones. As a consequence, it is important
to match the analytical approach to the specific
documentation of each historical phase.
As is well known, the earliest contexts available are Carthage (Tunisia) and Sulci (Sardinia),
both dated within the first half of the 8th century. Immediately afterwards, there is Motya
(Sicily), dated from the end of the same century
(fig. 1).4 These are precisely the contexts and
the historical phases that the present inquiry intends to investigate, in an attempt to understand
whether the tophet can be considered as a specific cultural and ethnic (particularly Phoenician)
marker in this period. The first objective of the
inquiry is to focus on the shared characteristics
and peculiarities of these ancient sites where the
earliest tophets were found. Secondly, comes
the attempt to reconstruct their possible social
4.
fenicios de Túnez, Sicilia y Cerdeña »). Moscati,
“Non è un tofet a Tiro”, 149 (« […] Il tofet è una
componente caratteristica, basilare e diffusa nel
mondo punico occidentale […] »).
On Carthage, Bénichou-Safar, Le tophet de Salammbô à Carthage. On Sulci, Bernardini, “Recenti indagini nel santuario tofet di Sulci”; Melchiorri,
“Le tophet de Sulci (S. Antioco, Sardaigne)”.
About Motya, Ciasca, “Mozia”.
|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2016|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 13.10
Valentina Melchiorri / Child Cremation Sanctuaries (“Tophets”) and Early Phoenician Colonisation
Obviously, even if the central Mediterranean dimension is the core of the analysis, it is wise to consider the general situation of the documentation for
the 8th century BC. This includes both the Levant
(i.e. the Phoenician motherland) and the Far West
(the Iberian Peninsula and the Atlantic regions, also
“theatres” of the so-called Phoenician colonisation),
according to their different “geo-political” premises
and specific historical developments.6
As for the terms “colonisation”, “culture” and
“ethnicity”, further refinement is necessary, concerning both the meaning and the use of such
concepts in connection with our theme – the
“tophet”. Several elements contribute to making
this still fluid field of research, which requires
further thorough analysis and new approaches.
The open questions include not only the basic
terminology but also further aspects, such as
ritual -, social -, cultural - and, more generally,
historical interpretation.7
2. Carthage: settlement planimetry.
From Gras, Rouillard, Teixidor, L’universo fenicio, fig. 24,
259.
features at the beginning of their existence and
the historical significance of those sanctuaries
as archaeological (and cultural?) markers, in
the general framework of the so-called western
Phoenician colonisation.5
5.
6.
7.
The concept of the “West” is very indefinite, as
emphasised inter alia by Braudel, “Les Mémoires
de la Méditerranée”, 193-196.
For the “Tyrrhenian dimension”, and the development of individual historical dynamics, see Gras,
Trafics tyrrhéniens archaïques, 8, followed by
Moscati, “Dimensione tirrenica”. The tophet can
be understood only within the framework of the
setting where Phoenicians moved from East to
West. For a general historical account, see Aubet,
Tiro y las colonias fenicias de Occidente. Niemeyer, “The Phoenicians in the Mediterranean”.
Krings, ed., La civilisation phénicienne et punique.
López Castro, ed, Las ciudades fenicio-púnicas en
el Mediterráneo Occidental. Sagona, ed., Beyond
the Homeland. Helas and Marzoli, eds., Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen.
In the frame of the discussion concerning the
evaluation of the tophet as a child-necropolis, and
its interpretation as a sanctuary – which is largely
As far as the terminology is concerned, the very
typological definition of the sanctuary is open to
several options, due to the possible multi-functionality of the tophet. While it is a sacred/consecrated place, which eludes rigid classification,
it does not exhibit – at least in the first phases
of its existence – very uniform characteristics,
or allow easy definitions. In my opinion, the labels “urban” (“peri-urban”, “sub-urban”, or even
“extra-urban”) for this sanctuary should be excluded because the term “urban” itself seems inadequate: for this earliest chronological phase
– perhaps with the exception of Carthage – it
is impossible to acknowledge these settlements
as fully “urban” centres (fig. 2).8 However, the
problem remains of finding a definition that can
8.
the prevalent view now – the problem of possible child-sacrifices must also be added. A very
lively debate is still in progress, and considerable
arguments in support of the sacrificial character
of the rites have recently been proposed, see
e.g. the overall summary in Xella, “Il tophet”. A
collective volume on this topic – a special issue of
the journal “Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino
Oriente antico” – has recently been published,
in 2013. For definitions of the so-called “sacred
space”, see in general Dupré Raventós, Ribichini
and Verger, eds., Saturnia Tellus.
The organisation and functional structure of the
earliest Phoenician sites is still the object of scholarly debate. The hypothesis that urbanisation was
not yet a fait accompli, during the 8th century BC,
seems the most convincing. For a general picture,
see Helas and Marzoli, eds., Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen. On Carthage as a real “town”
since its foundation see Lancel, Carthage, 49 ff.
|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2016|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 13.10
Valentina Melchiorri / Child Cremation Sanctuaries (“Tophets”) and Early Phoenician Colonisation
the same period or earlier – of similar contexts,
even if the general idea of an open space lacking
independent and/or monumental buildings may
have an Oriental origin. Perhaps, it is hypothetical to mention the enigmatic Hebrew bamôt,
commonly translated “high places”, of Syro-Palestinian (biblical) tradition.9 Nevertheless, some
Old Testament passages clearly speak of bamôt
in connection with child sacrifice (passed into
the fire), and the place called tophet (see e.g.
Jer. 7,31-32; 19,4-6; 32,35; Ez. 20,28-29), so
the parallel is not too audacious. However, other evidence (even if not purely archaeological,
but mainly inscriptions and literary documents)
strongly suggests a Levantine origin for this particular type of sanctuary and its related rites.10
3. Sulci: tophet view with in situ replacement of modern
copies of the urnes. Photo: V. Melchiorri (with kind permission of the “Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici
per le Province di Cagliari e Oristano”).
The analysis of the Phoenician documentation
from these centuries prompts some additional
remarks.11 Even excluding the tophet, no specific typologies of sacred/consecrated spaces are
known for the 9th-8th centuries in Phoenicia. As
a consequence, we are in no position to speak
of absences or presences in the West, and, even
less of a distancing, be it more or less conscious,
from the motherland traditions.
As mentioned above, the Levantine motherland
provides no archaeological evidence – either for
In other words, we cannot state that the institution of the tophet represents a break with the
traditional world of the Phoenician motherland,
simply because sacred architectural typologies
have not been found (or are not clearly recognisable) for these centuries. Therefore, the main
datum emerging in the Levantine motherland is
a nearly total lack of homogeneity in our evidence.12 Even if this does not fully invalidate the
interpretation of the tophet as a completely new
(archaeologically speaking) element, characteristic of the diaspora world, it surely puts its significance as a totally innovative and revolutionary (as regards the motherland) “cultural fact”
into perspective. Evidently, the dichotomy tradition versus innovation cannot be used here;
this is due to the aforementioned absence of archaeological evidence in the motherland, that in
this period is a heterogeneous context, without
the possibility of identifying precise typological
9.
12.
express the highly representative and symbolic
value to be ascribed to this sanctuary: it is very
probable that it can be considered a primary institution, which characterises the initial facies of
these centres’ lifespan. It is tempting to propose
that the basic binomial “built-up area/tophet”
can be interpreted as a kind of identity card of
the first Phoenician settlements in the central
Mediterranean. At any rate, the most peculiar
morphological feature of the tophet is an open
area that is defined by itself, by its very nature,
without specific spatial limits or actual buildings
above ground: the only visible and constant
markers are the urns themselves, emerging
from the walking-level of the sanctuary (fig. 3).
10.
11.
The relevant bibliography is very extensive. See
recently Barrick, “BMH as Body Language”.
Xella, “Le tophet comme problème historique”.
For a historical description of Phoenicia between
the 9th and 8th centuries BC, see Aubet, Tiro y
las colonias fenicias de Occidente, 38-42, 44-49.
Bernardini, “La Sardegna e i Fenici”. Bunnens,
“L’histoire événementielle partim Orient”.
It is also necessary to keep in mind the scarcity
of urban and architectural evidence in the motherland. For a comprehensive view, see Cecchini,
“Architecture militaire, civile et domestique partim
Orient”. Perra, L’architettura templare fenicia e
punica di Sardegna, passim.
|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2016|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 13.10
Valentina Melchiorri / Child Cremation Sanctuaries (“Tophets”) and Early Phoenician Colonisation
4. Carthage: tophet original contexts inside general stratigraphy.
From Bénichou-Safar, Le tophet de Salammbô à Carthage, Pl. XXV.
models to be assumed as terms of comparison
for the West.13
The contextual analysis: the best
way to a scientific approach
been analysed, mostly separately, especially stelae and urns. As a matter of fact, there is an
ever more pressing need to consider the whole
documentation through a deeper and exhaustive
approach, without omitting information of any
kind.
If we now look at the evidence from the western Mediterranean, a large amount of data and
of complex archaeological contexts is available,
but so far the analytical approaches have been
excessively general: the tophet has been seen as
a common Western phenomenon, without identifying internal variations according to the different historical periods, and the specific nature of
each corpus of evidence in its regional context.14
Moreover, only certain classes of material have
The increase of evidence should allow the compilation of more precise and complete archaeological corpora than those actually at our disposal:
first, through a careful classification of previous
data; second, through the systematic insertion
of new information, also in order to fill surprising
– and often quite inexplicable – gaps in the documentation.15 Each corpus (material culture, osteological data, epigraphy, literary sources) must
be analysed in se, but the resulting data have
13.
14.
15.
Regarding the documentation on the tophet in the
Levant, it is important to remember that, even
if we lack contextual architectural and archaeological evidence, on the contrary, there are some
epigraphic and literary data, e.g. the inscription
from Nebi Yunis, some biblical sources and passages by classical authors. The relevant material
has been collected in Xella,“ Le tophet comme
problème historique”.
Neverthless exhaustive works exist for Carthage
and Motya, see Bénichou-Safar, Le tophet de
Salammbô à Carthage. Ciasca, “Mozia”.
As an example, we can mention osteological
analysis, overlooked for too long in compari-
son with the large number of studies on stelae
and pottery. For a reassessment, see Melchiorri,
“Osteological Analysis in the Study of the Phoenician and Punic Tophet”. For recent discussion,
see Schwartz, Houghton, Macchiarelli and Bondioli, “Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do
Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants”;
Smith, Avishai, Green and Stager, “Aging cremated infants”; Schwartz, Houghton, Bondioli and
Macchiarelli, “Bones, teeth, and estimating age of
perinates”; Xella, Quinn, Melchiorri and Van Dommelen, “Phoenician bones of contention”.
|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2016|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 13.10
Valentina Melchiorri / Child Cremation Sanctuaries (“Tophets”) and Early Phoenician Colonisation
to be incorporated into the whole. The concrete
evidence should be the focus of attention: first of
all, I suggest, the depositional contexts, and not
the individual classes of materials separated according to their respective contexts. The various
classes of materials must not be considered as
independent significant categories, but must be
interpreted primarily on the basis of the relational connections they have within each context.
Therefore, an upset of analytical perspective is
required, together with a return to the contextual unity and the material documentation, which
only permits the identification of its structural
aspects (fig. 4).
To return to the evidence from the most archaic tophets: the dossier at our disposal is quite
meagre, in comparison with the data from later periods, and is almost entirely restricted to
the cinerary urns. This is exactly why I believe
that the only possible key analysis is a careful
study of the “depositional contexts” – i.e. each
urn in its own context, considered as the basic
unity to lay out the analysis – examined in all its
constitutive parts: container + contents + other
(possible) associated elements. It is a difficult
task due to the general character of the documentation, particularly because we do not have
absolutely assured chrono-typological grids for
the pottery. As a consequence, it is not always
easy to precisely date the most ancient levels
of the contexts. Therefore, we also lack precise
evaluations about the percentages of materials
to ascribe to each historical phase, an essential
element in order to understand diachronically the historical and cultural significance of the
events. However, the only road to follow is to
expand our dossiers carefully, and adhere closely to the material data. The tophet must not be
a field for speculation and theoretical flights of
fancy, rather one should keep in mind that material culture is one of the most important steps
in our interpretation.
“Ethnicity” and “identity”?
The study of the tophet as a
social, cultural and historical fact
Concerning the analytical perspective, it is a truism to note that it is necessary to make use of
several conceptual tools as elaborated by the social sciences, especially the critical development
of complex concepts such as “culture”, “ethnicity” or “identity”. As is well known, these are basic social and anthropological macro-categories,
sometimes used in a too general and somewhat
uncritical way, particularly within Phoenician
studies. In fact, their definition and limits are still
hotly debated by ethno-anthropologists as well.
As far as archaeology - a cumulative historical
science that aims at reconstructing the past
through “mute” sources (and not through living informants) - is concerned, the applicability
of these concepts must be prudently evaluated
and verified. One runs the risk of using vague (if
not empty!) stereotypes, with little (if any) relevance to vanished societies, whose conceptual
categories are almost totally unknown to us: e.g.
our concept of “identity” seems too arbitrary to
be applied at a theoretical level to Phoenician
society, which in turn is highly undefined.
Even though methodological caution is strongly required, and in spite of many difficulties,
the tophet may be considered an unusual case
study, a valuable “observatory” for understanding the various social dynamics within complex
settlements.16
Following this track, we may wonder what kind
of culture, ethnic group and cultural identification processes can be conjectured for the historical contexts of the 8th century BC, when some
of the earliest centres – traditionally related to
Phoenician “colonisation” – began life and started to develop. Regarding these aspects, can the
tophet be considered a specific cultural symbol, the manifestation of a precise social will of
self-representation?
In our discipline, the term “culture” is most commonly accepted as a synonym for “civilisation”,
like Kultur, with a collective meaning, i.e. the totality of the particular aspects that distinguish
one people from another. But in these terms,
“culture” almost overlaps with the concept of
16.
Quinn, “The Cultures of the Tophet”, 389-391.
|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2016|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 13.10
Valentina Melchiorri / Child Cremation Sanctuaries (“Tophets”) and Early Phoenician Colonisation
“ethnicity”, i.e. the identification of distinguishing and recognisable elements that characterise
an ethnic group.17 It is not surprising, therefore,
that for a long time “culture” was a conceptual
category “in crisis” even in anthropological studies, subject to continual criticism because – even
as a heuristic tool – it is difficult to be defined
once and for all.18 Far from being the static and
clearly defined sets that we sometimes imagine,
the different “cultures” are rather open and dynamic systems, subject to unceasing contamination and exchange, of different importance and
degree. It is precisely this meaning of “culture”
that seems the best to be applied to earlier tophets, not as corresponding to a specific “ethnicity”, but as open contexts, where the meeting of
different ethnic groups continually produces new
meanings and symbolic values, useful to a social
strategy with different roots and goals.
As far as the concept of “colonisation” is concerned, additional specifications and restrictions
are required. Its applicability to the so-called
western Phoenician contexts has already been
criticised and revised, chiefly due to the modern implications that contaminate this term.
Furthermore, its basic ambiguity is due to the
traditional “Greek” meaning, which still remains
popular.19 I am convinced that this terminology
should be rejected, chiefly for the historical period under consideration here. In fact, the concept of “colony” calls for establishing categories
and internal functional hierarchies of spaces that
cannot be documented for these earliest Phoenician settlements in the central Mediterranean. As
a consequence, it seems better to speak of a “diaspora world”, rather than of a “colonial world”20,
even if the choice of these terms is not free from
17.
18.
19.
For a survey of the interpretations, beginning with
E. B. Tylor and F. Boas, see inter alia Fabietti, Alle
origini dell’antropologia, 32-50. Fabietti, L’identità etnica. More extensively, Izard, Galaty and
Leavitt, “Cultura”. Lastly, a good overall summary
is Remotti, Cultura, with general bibliography.
Specific focus on these topics also in Jones, The
Archaeology of Ethnicity. Shennan, ed, Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.
For exactly this reason, “culture” has been
considered by anthropologists to be a real “deception” of our modern mentality”. See Geertz,
Interpretations of cultures; Clifford, I frutti puri
impazziscono; and many others.
See e.g. Niemeyer, “The Phoenicians in the Mediterranean”. Braudel, Les Mémoires de la Méditerranée, 207. As for recent contributions, see e.g.
Bernardini, “Neapolis e la regione fenicia del Golfo
di Oristano”, 96-97. Dietler, “The archaeology of
basic criticism. As a matter of fact, this definition takes into account the perspective of the
“incomers”, i.e. the subjects actively involved in
migratory movements from the East towards the
West, rather than that of the local people already
living in these regions.
However, during the 8th century BC, the most
important centres of the central Mediterranean
region seem to be far from having a full urban
organisation of the territory. It is probably an in
fieri process, and the dimensions of the early
conglomerations seem indicative of an “experimental” phase, when urban planning was not
yet complete. I agree with the remarks made
by P. Bernardini in several of his works: chiefly
for these early periods, it is convenient to find
an alternative model of interpretation, a model
that foresees a progressive development of the
settlements that achieved a more accomplished
organisation only later, perhaps during the 7th
century BC.21 Nevertheless, it is true that the
built-up area and the tophet are precisely the
two (“proto-urban”?) structures around which
the settlements progressively grow up. There
is strong evidence for this in all the three sites
of Carthage, Sulci and Motya, where the tophet
was introduced almost at the same time as most
archaic built-up nuclei.
For these early communities, forms of peaceful
cohabitation between local and Phoenician ethnic groups have often been suggested, particularly on the basis of the presence of hand-made
pottery – usually ascribed to local productions
– in the most ancient strata of the tophet-sanctuaries. Nevertheless, the most surprising fact is
that such associations are not so frequent in the
20.
21.
colonization and the colonization of archaeology”.
Hurst and Owen, eds., Ancient Colonisations. Van
Dommelen, “Colonial matters”. Knapp and Van
Dommelen, “Material Connections”, 3-5.
Quinn, “The Cultures of the Tophet”.
Bernardini, “Neapolis e la regione fenicia del Golfo
di Oristano”. Bernardini, “Sulki fenicia”. The situation of Greek colonial settlements seems to be
quite different: in some cases, Greek foundations,
which have a certain numerical consistency, are
real poleis in status nascendi, well established in
the territory, comprising owners of plots of land,
and on the road to achieving identity and civicpolitical dimensions, see Giangiulio, “Avventurieri, mercanti, coloni, mercenari”, 505. On general
aspects see Malkin’s recent works: “Exploring the
Validity of the Concept of «Foundation»; “Foundations”; see Malkin, “Greek colonisation”.
|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2016|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 13.10
Valentina Melchiorri / Child Cremation Sanctuaries (“Tophets”) and Early Phoenician Colonisation
corresponding built-up areas.22 From this point
of view, the tophet would seem to be the place
appointed in order to create – at least at a symbolic level – a progressive (and still in fieri, for
this chronological phase) social integration between different ethnic groups. In coherence with
this analysis, the tophet may be seen as a new
“cultural phenomenon” but I do not mean here
an “ethnic” manifestation, but a social fact, a
way to create a composite community and to facilitate the cohesion of its components. In other
words, it is perhaps the occasion to achieve not a
univocal, but a complex social identity, a collective identity that goes beyond ethnic roots. The
aim seems to be a quest for new ways of aggregation, to warrant the maintenance of a social
order and, in the last resort, to affirm “urban
identity” which was to be the definitive achievement only of a later historical facies.
22.
In particular this seems evident at Sulci, see Bernardini, “I Fenici nel Sulci”. Bernardini, “Recenti
indagini nel santuario tofet di Sulci”. Regarding
Motya, see Ciasca, “Mozia”, passim.
Bibliography
Aubet, María Eugenia. Tiro y las colonias fenicias
de Occidente. Barcelona: Ediciones Bellaterra, 1987.
Barrick, Boyd William. BMH as Body Language: A
Lexical and Iconographical Study of the Word BMH
When not a Reference to Cultic Phenomena in Biblical and Post-Biblical Hebrew. London-New York: T&T
Clark, 2008.
Bartoloni, Piero. “Appunti sul tofet” in: Valentino
Nizzo and Luigi La Rocca, eds. Antropologia e archeologia a confronto: Rappresentazioni e pratiche del
sacro. Atti del 2° Incontro Internazionale di Studi,
Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico “Luigi Pigorini” (Roma, 20-21 maggio 2011). Roma: ESS Editorial
Service System, 2012, 215-221.
Bénichou-Safar, Hélène. Le tophet de Salammbô à
Carthage. Essai de reconstitution. Collection de l’École
Française de Rome 342. Roma: École Française de
Rome, 2004.
Bernardini, Paolo. “Sulky fenicia. Aspetti di una comunità di frontiera” in: Sophie Helas and Dirce Marzoli, eds. Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen.
Akten der internationalen Tagung in Rom vom 21. bis
23. Februar 2007. Iberia Archaeologica 13. Mainz am
Rhein: Philipp Von Zabern, 2009, 389-398.
Bernardini, Paolo. “La Sardegna e i Fenici. Appunti
sulla colonizzazione”. Rivista di Studi Fenici, 21 (1993)
1, 29-81.
Bernardini, Paolo. “I Fenici nel Sulci: la necropoli di
San Giorgio di Portoscuso e l’insediamento del Cronicario di Sant’Antioco” in: Piero Bartoloni and Lorenza Campanella, eds. La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna.
Dati, problematiche, confronti. Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano (S. Antioco, 19-21
settembre 1997). Collezione di Studi Fenici 40. Roma:
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 2000, 29-61.
Bernardini, Paolo. “Leggere il tofet: sacrifici e sepolture. Una riflessione sulle fasi iniziali del tofet”. Epigrafia e antichità, 18 (2002), 15-27.
Bernardini, Paolo. “Neapolis e la regione fenicia del
golfo di Oristano” in: Raimondo Zucca, ed. Splendidissima civitas Neapolitanorum. Collana del Dipartimento
di Storia dell’Università di Sassari 27. Roma: Carocci,
2005, 67-123.
Bernardini, Paolo. “Per una rilettura del santuario
tofet – I: il caso di Mozia. Sardinia, Corsica et Baleares
Antiquae, III (2005), 55-70.
Bernardini, Paolo. “Recenti indagini nel santuario
tofet di Sulci” in: Antonella Spanò Giammellaro, ed.
Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e
Punici (Marsala-Palermo, 2-8 ottobre 2000). Vol. III.
Palermo: Università degli Studi di Palermo, 2005,
1059-1069.
Bondì, Sandro Filippo; Botto, Massimo; Garbati,
Giuseppe and Oggiano, Ida. Fenici e Cartaginesi. Una
civiltà mediterranea. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 2009.
Bonnet, Corinne. “On Gods and Earth: The Tophet and the Construction of a New Identity in Punic
Carthage” in: Erich Stephen Gruen, ed. Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Los Angeles (CA):
Getty Research Institute, 2011, 373-387.
Braudel, Fernand. Les Mémoires de la Méditerranée. Paris: Éditions de Fallois, 1998.
|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2016|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 13.10
Valentina Melchiorri / Child Cremation Sanctuaries (“Tophets”) and Early Phoenician Colonisation
Bunnens, Guy. “L’histoire événementielle partim Orient” in: Véronique Krings, ed. La civilisation
phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche. Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill, 1995, 223-236.
Cecchini, Serena. “Architecture militaire, civile et
domestique partim Orient” in: Véronique Krings, ed.
La civilisation phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche. Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill, 1995, 389-396.
Ciasca, Antonia. “Mozia: sguardo d’insieme sul
tofet”. Vicino Oriente, 8 (1992), 113-155.
Ciasca, Antonia. “Archeologia del tofet” in: Carlos
González Wagner and Luis Alberto Ruiz Cabrero, eds.
El Molk como concepto del sacrificio púnico y hebreo
y el final del Dios Moloch. Madrid: Centro de Estudios
Fenicios y Púnicos, 2002, 121-140.
Clifford, James. I frutti puri impazziscono. Etnografia, letterature e arte nel secolo XX. Torino: Bollati
Boringhieri, 1993.
D’Andrea, Bruno and Giardino, Sara. “«Il tofet:
dove e perché»: alle origini dell’identità fenicia”. Vicino & Medio Oriente, XV (2011), 133-157.
Dietler, Michael. “The archaeology of colonization
and the colonization of archaeology: theoretical reflections on an ancient Mediterranean colonial encounter”
in: Gil Stein, ed. The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparatives Perspectives. Santa Fe: School of
American Research Press, 2005, 33-68.
Dupré Raventós, Xavier; Ribichini, Sergio and Verger, Stéphane, eds. Saturnia Tellus. Definizioni dello
spazio consacrato in ambiente etrusco, italico, fenicio-punico, iberico e celtico. Atti del Convegno internazionale svoltosi a Roma dal 10 al 12 novembre 2004.
Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 2008.
Fabietti, Ugo. Alle origini dell’antropologia. Torino:
Boringhieri, 1980.
Fabietti, Ugo. L’identità etnica. Storia e critica di
un concetto equivoco. Roma: Carocci editore, 200810.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretations of Cultures.
New York: Basic Books Publishers, 2000.
Giangiulio, Maurizio. “Avventurieri, mercanti, coloni, mercenari” in: Salvatore Settis, ed. I Greci. Storia
Cultura Arte Società. Vol. 2.1. Torino: Einaudi, 1996,
497-525.
Gras, Michel. Trafics tyrrhéniens archaïques.
Roma: Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes
et de Rome, 1985.
Gras, Michel; Rouillard, Pierre; Teixidor, Javier.
L’universo fenicio. Torino: Einaudi, 2008.
Hall, Stuart. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora” in:
Jonathan Rutheford, ed. Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990,
222-237.
Helas, Sophie and Marzoli, Dirce, eds. Phönizisches
und punisches Städtewesen. Akten der internationalen Tagung in Rom vom 21. bis 23. Februar 2007.
Iberia Archaeologica 13. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp Von
Zabern, 2009.
Hurst, Henry and Owen, Sarah, eds. Ancient Colonizations: Analogy, Similarity and Difference. London:
Duckworth, 2005.
Izard, Michel; Galaty, John and Leavitt, John. “Cultura” in: Pierre Bonte and Michel Izard, eds. Dizionario
di antropologia e etnologia. Marco Aime, ed. (italian
edition). Torino: Einaudi, 2009, 279-285.
Jones, Siân. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing identities in the past and present. London:
Routledge, 1997.
Knapp, Bernard Arthur and Van Dommelen, Peter.
“Material connections. Mobility, materiality and Mediterranean identities” in: Bernard Arthur Knapp and
Peter Van Dommelen, eds. Material connections in
the Ancient Mediterranean. Mobility, materiality and
Mediterranean identities. Oxon-New York: Routledge,
2010, 1-18.
Krings, Véronique, ed. La civilisation phénicienne
et punique. Manuel de recherche. Leiden-New YorkKöln: Brill, 1995.
Lancel, Serge. Carthage. Paris: Fayard, 1992.
López Castro, José Luis, ed. Las ciudades fenicio-púnicas en el Mediterráneo Occidental. Almería:
Centro de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos-Universidad de
Almería, 2007.
Malkin, Irad. “Exploring the Validity of the Concept
of «Foundation»: A Visit to Megara Hyblaia” in: Vanessa B. Gorman and Eric W. Robinson, eds. Oikistes:
Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power
in the Ancient World. Offered in Honor of A.J. Graham.
Leiden-Boston-Köln, 2002, 195-225.
Malkin, Irad. “Foundations” in: Kurt Raaflaub and
Hans van Wees, eds. A Companion to Archaic Greece.
Oxford: Wile-Blackwell, 2009, 373-394.
Malkin, Irad. “Greek colonisation: the right to return” in: Lieve Donnellan, Valentino Nizzo and GertJan Burgers, eds. Conceptualising early Colonisation.
Turnhout, 2016, 27-50.Melchiorri, Valentina. “Le
tophet de Sulci (S. Antioco, Sardaigne). État des études
et perspectives de la recherche”. Ugarit-Forschungen,
41 (2009) [2011], 509-524.
Melchiorri, Valentina. “Osteological Analysis in the
Study of the Phoenician and Punic Tophet: a History of Research”. Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino
Oriente antico, 29-30 (2012-2013). Verona: Essedue
Edizioni, 2013, 223-258.
Moscati, Sabatino. “Dimensione tirrenica”. Rivista
di Studi Fenici, 16 (1988) 2, 133-144.
Moscati, Sabatino. “Non è un tofet a Tiro”. Rivista
di Studi Fenici, 21 (1993) 2, 147-152.
Niemeyer, Hans Georg. “The Phoenicians in the
Mediterranean: a Non-Greek Model for Expansion and
Settlement in Antiquity” in: Jean-Paul Descoeudres,
ed. Greek Colonists and Native Populations. Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology Held in Honour of Emeritus Professor A. D.
Trendall (Sidney, 9-14 July 1985). New York: Oxford
University Press, 1990, 469-489.
Perra, Carla. L’architettura templare fenicia e punica di Sardegna: il problema delle origini orientali.
Oristano: S’Alvure, 1998.
Quinn, Josephine C. “The Cultures of the Tophet.
Identification and Identity in the Phoenician Diaspora”
in: Erich Stephen Gruen, ed. Cultural Identity in the
Ancient Mediterranean. Los Angeles (CA): Getty Research Institute, 2011, 388-413.
Remotti, Francesco. Cultura. Dalla complessità
all’impoverimento. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 2011.
Sagona, Claudia, ed. Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Ancient Near Eastern
Studies Supplement 28. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2016|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 13.10
Valentina Melchiorri / Child Cremation Sanctuaries (“Tophets”) and Early Phoenician Colonisation
Schwartz, Jeffrey Hugh; Houghton, Frank; Bondioli, Luca and Macchiarelli, Roberto. “Bones, teeth, and
estimating age of perinates: Carthaginian infant sacrifice revisited”. Antiquity, 86 (2012), 738-745.
Schwartz, Jeffrey Hugh; Houghton, Frank; Macchiarelli, Roberto and Bondioli, Luca. Skeletal Remains
from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants. PLoS ONE 5(2): e9177. doi.10.1371/
journal.pone.0009177 (2010).
Shennan, Stephen, ed. Archaeological Approaches
to Cultural Identity. London: Routledge, 20032.
Smith, Patricia; Avishai, Gal; Greene, John A. and
Stager, Lawrence Elliot. Aging cremated infants: the
problem of sacrifice at the Tophet of Carthage. Antiquity, 85 (2011), 859-874.
Van Dommelen, Peter. “Colonial matters. Material
culture and postcolonial theory in colonial situations”,
in: Cristopher Tilley; Webb Keane; Susan KuechlerFogden; Mike Rowlands and Patricia Spyer, eds. Handbook of Material Culture. London: Sage, 2006, 104124.
Xella, Paolo, “Le tophet comme problème historique. Under Eastern Eyes” in: Ahmed Ferjaoui, ed.
Actes du 6ème Congrès International d’Études Phéniciennes et Puniques (Hammamet, 10-14 novembre
2009). In press.
Xella, Paolo. “Per un «modello interpretativo» del
tofet: il tofet come necropoli infantile?” in: Gilda Bartoloni; Paolo Matthiae; Lorenzo Nigro and Licia Romano, eds. Tiro, Cartagine, Lixus: nuove acquisizioni. Atti del Convegno Internazionale in onore di Maria
Giulia Amadasi Guzzo (Roma, 24-25 novembre 2008).
Quaderni del Vicino Oriente 4. Roma: Università degli
Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, 2010, 259-278.
Xella, Paolo. “Il tophet. Un’interpretazione generale” in: Simonetta Angiolillo; Marco Giuman and
Chiara Pilo, eds. MEIXIS. Dinamiche di stratificazione
culturale nella periferia greca e romana. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi “Il sacro e il profano”
(Cagliari, 5-7-maggio 2011). Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, 2012, 1-17.
Xella, Paolo; Quinn, Josephine; Melchiorri, Valentina and Van Dommelen, Peter. “Phoenician bones of
contention”. Antiquity, 87 (2013), 1199-1207.
