Blog: The Importance of Names: The Carthaginian ‘Tophet’ at 100

Nathan Pilkington calls for the abandonment of the term “tophet,” generally, and a renaming of the “tophet” at Carthage, specifically. Based on the epigraphic record at Carthage, a more proper name for the site is The Sanctuary of Ba'al Hamon.

As Classical Studies and this blog has focused much attention lately and necessarily on issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion within the profession, I here turn a similar energy towards problems of how we discuss ancient peoples. The subjugated peoples of the Roman period suffered twin defeats. Not only did they lose their sovereignty, but they also lost, for the most part, the ability to write their own histories. One of the most famous examples of such a defeat is Carthage. Though it dominated the Mediterranean for three or more centuries, its ultimate destruction at the hands of Roman armies robbed Carthage not only of its existence but also its own internally-produced narratives. Though many issues arise with the study of Carthage, the most notable locus of debate in recent scholarship is a dedicated burial ground for infants and children, a place commonly identified with the name “Tophet.” Given its centrality to religion at Carthage and other sites in the central Mediterranean, it seems especially important that scholars describe these sites correctly. Yet, we know “tophet” is a misnomer. At the core of these musings is thus a simple question. What are we to do when we know that the name of something is wrong?

2024-2025 marks a century since the beginning of nearly continuous excavations at a sanctified burial ground for infants and children found at Carthage. The site came to light when objects began to appear on the antiquities market in 1921. The first excavations were carried out in 1924-1925. When the site was first excavated, it caused quite a sensation. Due to narratives in the Greco-Roman sources, scholars, even prior to the site’s discovery, had long argued that the Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice. The discovery of numerous infants and children in burial urns, often accompanied by sacrificed animals, within a dedicated area seemed to confirm these narratives (though here I leave aside the veracity of such arguments). Due to iconography found on certain burial stelae and in some cases with references to Flaubert’s historical novel, the site has been described as the “Precinct/Sanctuary of Tanit” or occasionally Salammbô. Yet neither name stuck, especially as numerous similar sites were found and excavated throughout the central Mediterranean, most notably at Motya in Sicily and Tharros in Sardinia.

Instead, “tophet” has come to be the standard name, in multiple languages and in both academic and public discourse, for the burial ground at Carthage and similar sites found in North Africa or the central Mediterranean. “Tophet” derives not from direct records found at any infant and child burial site in the central Mediterranean. In point of fact, the name would have been unknown to any of the individuals that were involved in the rituals at these sites.

Rather, “tophet” is a scholarly construction, derived from an unrelated site described in the Bible. The descriptions are found in 2 Kings 23.10 (“And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech”) and Jeremiah 7.31 (“And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire”). The name was transposed to infant and child burial sites in the central Mediterranean due to a perceived similarity among the rituals described in the Bible, Carthaginian rituals described in the Greco-Roman sources (Cleitarchus, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, et al.), and the physical remains found in excavations.

Problematically, the name is an obvious misnomer, a fact which has been now known for decades. Above many of the burials, the Carthaginians placed inscribed stelae. At present, thousands of examples have been recovered. Though much debate has focused on the named gods and rituals described in these texts, comparatively little attention has been given the name of the site itself. As Imed Ben Jerbania et al. have recently noted, “This place is named ŠR HQDŠ ('sacred place') in CIS 3779 and QDŠ ('sanctuary') in CIA 3778" (Ce lieu est nommé ’ŠR HQDŠ, ‘lieu/place sacré(e)’ dans la CIS 3779 et QDŠ ‘sanctuaire’ dans la CIS 3778). These authors thus conclude that the space needs a name change to reflect the actual identification of the people who used it. At Carthage, the primary deity recorded in inscriptions is Ba‘al Ḥamon. While the goddess Tanit was later commonly added to inscriptions at the site, she is most often recorded as the “face of Ba‘al.” Further, Baʿal Ḥamon is still described as the ‘the lord’ in the many of these later inscriptions. Therefore, it is evident from the epigraphic record that the sanctuary remained dedicated to Ba‘al Hamon throughout its history. Putting these pieces together, Ben Jerbania et al. suggest a switch in nomenclature to “Sanctuary of Baʿal Ḥamon at Carthage.”

“At Carthage” is a particularly important addition to the suggested name, given the findings of recent excavations at multiple sites in the central Mediterranean. Using a single name, “tophet,” makes it appear as if all these sanctuaries in the central Mediterranean are part of a single religious practice and belief system. However, excavations at Motya, Tharros, Carthage and other sites have demonstrated multiple differences. These differences include the rate of depositions, which can be notably higher at Carthage than other sites when studied on per annum basis. Further differences include the actual contents of the urns recovered. Some sites have higher proportions of urns with human burials alone, whereas other sites contain more animal burials with no human remains included. Finally, every site has differences in iconography and epigraphy on its stelae. Thus, it is clear archaeologically that, while the sites are certainly broadly related, they may not have shared the exact same practices or beliefs behind those practices.

Ben Jerbania et al., therefore, are certainly correct in their description and their newly suggested name. It remains, however, to see how quickly the field will respond. I must pronounce myself guilty of not quickly effectuating the shift in my own work. Though their article appeared in 2020, I published an article with “tophet” in the title in 2023. It is not a mistake I will make again.

To close, I should note that “tophet” is not the only name with particular problems in the study of Carthaginian history. “Punic” is a similarly contested term, against which J.R.W. Prag, most notably, has long waged battle. Carthaginians are also not the only ancient people whose history suffers from problems of nomenclature. Similar issues exist with peoples in Iberia, Celts, Etruscans, Persians and others. Any time we confront a defeated people in antiquity, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the perspective of the Greco-Roman source tradition and to ask ourselves two simple questions. Who sees? Who tells? Where possible, we should privilege any information derived from the people under study, no matter how limited the scraps of evidence are that remain.