Why did human sacrifice go out?
- Thread starter MrNumbahOne
- Start date
jahenders
Banned
In general, it went out of practice because the cultures practicing it were conquered/weakened by cultures that didn't.
For much of the world, it was the influence of Greco-Roman culture/law, aided by the spread of Christianity, or conquest by "christian" nations.
In China it was done by emperors banning it, though whether they did it for humanitarian reasons or for efficient use of resources, it's hard to say.
For much of the world, it was the influence of Greco-Roman culture/law, aided by the spread of Christianity, or conquest by "christian" nations.
In China it was done by emperors banning it, though whether they did it for humanitarian reasons or for efficient use of resources, it's hard to say.
The Roman explanation makes sense, but the Greek explanation does not make much sense, to be honest. I've never really heard of a culture deliberately abandoning a practice in order to differentiate itself from others.
EDIT: I think jahenders filled in some of the gaps.
Some Greek poleis mantained into (early) Classical times ritual practices such as the "Pharmakos", that more or less a human scapegoat. However, the evolution of Greek societies probably made this sort of practices increasingly out of place. I mean, the greek world was made relatively egalitarian and closely knit communities that however generally recognized a mutual cultural bond. Sacrificing people would be odd in that context.*
By the way, I never encountered any source hinting at human sacrifice in Ancient Egypt or Ancient Mesopotamia.
More generally, human sacrifice makes sense only within a societal and ritual context. The long-term patterns of development in most Old World societies created contexts increasingly hostile to that.
In China, India, Iran and the Mediterranean world, this has something to do with the spread of humanitarian ideas related to the so called "Axial Age", but in many areas, the abandonement of the practice predates that (in China for instance). In early states, human sacrifice was probably tied to centralized power structure of the temple-palace sort.
The oracle bones seem to point to a pretty massive human sacrifice activity (usually captured enemies). I know no primary source explaining why it died out, but it did so quite swiftly and deeply AFAIK. It looks like that the practice was essentially tied to the Shang court.
One could think that in many cases, it was the firther evolution of the state that made the practice undesirable (like it was useful for enforcing public order in a different stage).
* As counterexample, should we consider the cold-blooded execution of the Eleusians, ordered by Critias in 404 BCE as a way to tie the Athenian oligarchy in collective complicity and guilt, a form of "human sacrifice"?
Don't forget the practice of suttee in India,only wiped out in the 19th century due to British rule. Likewise, thugee was as much about sacrificing to Kali as it was theft. Ritual/religious human sacrifice was stopped under the influence or control of European powers - whose Roman/Christian ethos was opposed to human sacrifice. As noted, the various cultures that practiced ritual human sacrifice, to a greater or lesser extent, in the Americas, were stamped out by the same folks. For good measure include random "primitive" cultures in various out of the way spots in the world.
IMHO if you prevent the rise of Christianity (which might very well butterfly away Islam as we know it) you may have the opportunity for sacrificing cultures to become technologically competitive and survive and/or the dominant culture that evolves in Europe and becomes relatively powerful is either sacrificing itself or tolerant of the practice.
IMHO if you prevent the rise of Christianity (which might very well butterfly away Islam as we know it) you may have the opportunity for sacrificing cultures to become technologically competitive and survive and/or the dominant culture that evolves in Europe and becomes relatively powerful is either sacrificing itself or tolerant of the practice.
Hebrews versus Canaanites? Romans versus Germanic tribes? Christians versus Muslims?
Killing people for gods was already on its way out before there's an emperor in China. The first emperor banned burying slaves and concubines alive with their late masters, but from what we know about Qin Shi Huang, I'd say efficient HR might be the main reason. This didn't stop him from building a massive Terra Cotta Army in his mausoleum to compensate, however.
I'd discuss this counting as human sacrifice for my part... From what I understood, the punishement for a vestal breaking her vows was a death sentence, generally being buried alive. It had heavy religious connotations sure (Vestal were required to be virgins because of their status as priestess of Vesta) but to me it's more akin to the use of death penalty than to a human sacrifice.Gordius said:
As I've heard it, Carthaginian ritual sacrifices were likely done for the same reason that Romans and Greeks abandoned unwanted children, only the Carthaginians sacrificed infants to the gods instead of leaving them to die of exposure. Infanticide was distressingly common in the ancient world.
It also doesn't help that most of our sources about Carthage come from cultures that despised them.
This may sound strange, but why exactly was Christianity against human sacrifice. I mean, was there an anthropological reason for it or was it just a belief that sprung up? Because the Romans did it, they were against it?
Judaism was against human sacrifice. Christianity just took that bit for granted. When Christianity emerged, the Romans were quite firmly against that as well (so much indeed that the Pagan Romans accused Christians of that).
And, by the way, any form of actual blood sacrifice, human or not, would quite run against the whole point of what would be the defining theological feature of Christianity, that is, that God sacrificed Himself (in the form of the Son) to redeem humanity.
The Vestals were buried alive not just for breaking their vows, but as an offering to the gods they had insulted by breaking their holy Vows of chastity. The death of a person as an offering to the gods is rather irrefutably a sacrifice.
There is also evidence that some of the Vestals were less than honest in their celibacy, but in times of crisis or factional strife the hammer came down rather brutally like in the cases of Aemilia, Marcia and Licinia, who were all killed one after the other for breaking their vows supposidly.
The ritual strangulation of captured leaders of defeated nations was also seen as a sacrifice as part of a Triumph like the death of Vercingetorix or rather less triumphal like the strangling of Aristonicus in the dank cells of the Tulliarum and the slow starvation of Jugurtha.
The Aztecs paraded great warriors through Tenochtitlan before sacrificing them in the temples of their gods. The Romans essentially did the same thing on a lesser but equally symbolic scale.
One of arguments I've heard is that sacrifice didn't end. It changed form. Burning heretics, witches, etc in Spain was taking place at a rate comparable to the Aztec rate of sacrifice and some Gauls were disgusted w/ Roman gladiator games because it was mere entertainment.
And the reason sacrifice was done, and the reason it was stopped were precisely the same; because life is too precious.
And the reason sacrifice was done, and the reason it was stopped were precisely the same; because life is too precious.
Pretty much. They picked it up theologically from the Jewish teachings, while culturally it was already taboo in most regions. It's hard to even properly substantiate plenty of claims of people who did practice human sacrifice (with the druids being one of the most likely to have actually not practiced it) in antiquity because it seems to have generally been taboo in some cultures, while only middling popular in others.
As for why the practice died out, I really couldn't say. A general shift in cultures against it?
A problem in the human resources department?
Okay, in that context it makes sense.Gordius said:
These people aren't human sacrifice... They've been sentenced to death, but they aren't executed in the name of God but for crimes they committed that are punishable by death according to Texan law.DValdron said:
Death Penalty =/= Human Sacrifice
jahenders
Banned
A few points there:
a) I don't see a strong equivalence between burning heretics and/or gladiatorial games and human sacrifice. The former wasn't a sacrifice to deity, it was cleansing evil influences from society. The latter was entertainment.
b) I don't think you could really stay that the burning of heretics and so forth was at a comparable rate to the Aztecs. Only about 3-5K people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition in about 150 years, while other witch burnings may have executed a few thousand total. Meanwhile the Aztecs sacrificed several thousand a year (some estimates as high as 20K or even 100K).
a) I don't see a strong equivalence between burning heretics and/or gladiatorial games and human sacrifice. The former wasn't a sacrifice to deity, it was cleansing evil influences from society. The latter was entertainment.
b) I don't think you could really stay that the burning of heretics and so forth was at a comparable rate to the Aztecs. Only about 3-5K people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition in about 150 years, while other witch burnings may have executed a few thousand total. Meanwhile the Aztecs sacrificed several thousand a year (some estimates as high as 20K or even 100K).
The gladiatorial games started as a funeral tradition among upper class Romans. When a patrician died a slave was to be killed as an offering to the departed, though they were both given weapons and the loser was to be the sacrifice. The early gladiatorial games were called the Funary Games. Then people started to go to funerals just to see the fighters duke it out and so the games became larger and more elaborate and gradually the Gladiatorial games divorced themselves of the Funeral Rites they were originally associated with.
The Aztecs also practice's a similar kind of sacrifice by tying warriors to a rock and arming them with a macatl with cotton buds instead of obsidian glass, as was usual. Then setting them against 3 Jaguar Knights. There was a story of one man who managed to kill over 20 before the Aztecs effectively pardoned him. I cannot recall his name though.
The Aztecs also practice's a similar kind of sacrifice by tying warriors to a rock and arming them with a macatl with cotton buds instead of obsidian glass, as was usual. Then setting them against 3 Jaguar Knights. There was a story of one man who managed to kill over 20 before the Aztecs effectively pardoned him. I cannot recall his name though.
Tlalhuicole. He was sacrificed eventually, on his own request.