Talk:Human sacrifice/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Human Sacrifice in Hinduism

I dont know why material from hinduism is not added in this article. It is available in plenty at :

http://www.ambedkar.org/riddleinhinduism/21A1.Riddles%20in%20Hinduism%20PART%20I.htm#r01

See my text in the talk page

Talk:Purushamedha

This describes exact procedure for human sacrifice in hinduism. I would like that someone may please add material to this article from it, else I may do it in my capacity.

--L.Gautam 10:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[dead reference link]

Under "Modern Human Sacrifice," there is a mention of a ritual murder that supposedly took place in 1999; however, the external reference link is dead, and the website to which it was supposed to link is. . .well, I'll let you judge its reliability: http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/293/43/ Shakantala 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Crete

True, I don't remember the Cretan reference. Also, why is it thought the people found in the foundation of buildings are necessarily sacrificial victims? Even today people sometimes end up in the foundation of buildings because of accidents and the impossibility of getting them out.

Cretans tried to stop the destruction of their island this way. With human sacrifices to the volcano or something? Destruction of Crete? Was this an Atlantis movie? Can we remove this? Wetman 05:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

i remember an article in National Geographic, it was an excavation of what it seems it was a human sacrifice. An earthquake killed the priest, and his remains are beside the victim. The quake was estimated about the time of Thera eruption. I read it about 10 years ago, i will try to find the reference and see if it,s a propiated here.

Nanahuatzin 00:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The references to Cretan human sacrifice in both myth and recent archaeological publications have actually never been substantiated or accepted by the archaeological community at large. The two instances of 'human sacrifice' on Crete are 1)burnt children's bones found in the basement of a Late Minoan IB house at Knossos and 2)a burnt skeleton at the 'shrine' at Anemospilia, slightingly above the site of Archanes, which is the example to which you are refering Nanahuatzin. Although the excavater of the house at Knossos, Peter Warren, advanced the idea of cannibalism based on the presence of cut marks on the bones, forensic scientists and archaeologists generally agree that these marks are simple prove the presence of defleshing of the bones which is common in many burial practices. As for Y. Sakellarakis and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, the excavators of Archanes and Anemospilia, they have never published a forensic scientist's report confirming their claim that the strange coloration of the bones of the alleged victim are a direct result of his being sacrificed. All other evidence that they site is circumstantial or incorrect. For a comprehensive overview of both sites I recommend the book 'Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece' by Dennis D. Hughes. ClaireAliki 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It always amazes me how touchy people get at the possibility that the Minoans weren't the flower-loving utopian civilization people want them to be. "All other evidence is circmstantial or incorrect"? what nonsense. The arguments against the evidence of human sacrifice always seems to go along the lines of "the minoans (as the peaceful, creative, civilized people they were) wouldn't do that, so obviously it is untrue". It's all a left over of the romantic turn of the century fantasies of Arthur Evans. I mean, for god's sake, the children found in the 'basement' were tellingly found with the bones of sheep or goats, who had similar marks on the bones, etc. The young man in the tripartite shrine was found on a table, trussed up like the bull on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus! With a long knife blade mingled with his bones...and the table/altar was next to a column with a trough at its base.... near the feet of presumably what had been an image of a goddess or something. And out in the front room, there had been someone carrying a jar of blood. Animal blood, to be sure, but come on, explaining these details away requires venturing into absurdity. What I recommend is reading up on the historiography of Crete, in order to understand the century of baggage attached to "Minoan" Crete.

Novium 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tantrism

Can someone please make a distinction between Tantric philosophy and folk superstition in general? Tantrism is the tribal pre-Vedic folk religion of the Indian subcontinent and didn't evolve from Hinduism. It's the other way around. But saying Tantric beliefs lead to human sacrifice is as ridiculous as saying the Dalai Lama bathes in infants' blood or that any self-identified Christian murderer is purely motivated by a random bit in the Bible (or to compare on an equal scale of ignorance, motivated by whatever fire and brimstone his local priest has preached to him). Such sweeping generalisations are not NPOV.--Snowgrouse 02:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Tajin

Tajin was o Toltec city not Mayan. In article frescoes from Tajin are proof of human sacrifice in Mayan culture. Silthor 10:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Modifications in a section

Now that I and other editors have been working hard for a week to rewrite Human sacrifice in Aztec culture I made several modifications in this article.

Firstly, I re-titled “Mesoamerican sacrifice” to “Pre-Columbian sacrifice” since the Inca region is not in Mesoamerica.

I also eliminated some of the material that is now replicated in the two articles and the phrases that downplayed the wide consensus among scholars of the historicity of the sacrifices (for example, the evidence of child sacrifice in the Inca civilization). On the other hand, since the Maya image is self-sacrifice, not ritual murder, I removed it.

I also divided the section in sub-sections for readability.

—Cesar Tort 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cesar, I know you have been working hard on this and other articles (e.g. Human sacrifice in Aztec culture) and you have been doing a great job. So, I hope you will take the following comment in a spirit of constructive criticism of the article and not of your work per se.

The "Pre-Columbian" section of this article is of distinctly lower quality than the rest of the article. The reason for this is that is composed a lot of short subsections with only one or two sentences per section. The rest of this article tends towards longer paragraphs.

I know that you have a lot of knowledge and interest in this area (certainly more than I do). So, I hope you will work to expand the "Pre-Columbian" section to bring it up to the quality of the rest of the article.

--Richard 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: that section still needs a lot of work. Meanwhile I have made many copyedits and modifications.

For instance, I have eliminated self-references as per WP recommendations and a short obscure phrase in the Viking section. Also, I re-arranged sections chronologically. This was tricky. As an example of my rationale I placed the Incas at the end since it was the culture that was conquered in the late XVI century, thereby the last great culture to end the regular practice of human sacrifices. Similarly, I relocated the recent Sati sacrifice in the “Contemporary” section; and the Maya should precede the Aztecs for chronological reasons as well.

Also, I moved the Tlaloc section above the Xipe-Totec: Tlaloc was a more important god for Aztecs. I also changed some names of the headings.

—Cesar Tort 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The thuggee did not practice human sacrifice

Can somebody please provide a reference from a reputable source for the statement that thuggee practices human sacrifice. As far as I know they murdered people to rob them. They did not kill people as a sacrifice to Kali. Andries 18:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thuggees justified their killings as sacrifices to kali although most of the time it was also profitable! I don't have a convenient reference to add. 217.7.209.108 13:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

removing section

I am removing the entire subsection placed by User:PBC —:

Human sacrifice today.

Human sacrifice still continues in West Africa, southern Africa and other parts of Africa. It also continues in India. It is infrequent in South America and the West Indies.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  These incidents encompass human sacrifice and the collection of body parts for traditional medicine. A related issue is the collection of body parts from graves. The burial of people with chiefs, which lasted into the last century, has now ceased.

The publicity surrounding "Adam", the torso of a boy found in the Thames River in London, lead to in investigation by New Scotland Yard.

—due to this comment in his or her talk page. If reinserted I expect the claims to be supported by reliable sources. Cesar Tort 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the information about "adam" should be kept, as it's sourced from BBC news. Blueshirts 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the moved source (two references sourced with same link): [1]. You are most welcome, please, to find better sources and restore moved sentences. —Cesar Tort 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thugs or Thugees

Should Thugs or Thugees be included. Mamalujo (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In Modern Day Eruope

Wasn't there a famous murder during the black metal chaos in Scandinavia that some people thought was a human sacrifice to odin?

75.161.225.25 (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

there were the murders by Bård Faust and Varg Vikernes. If either has been described as "human sacrifice", the burden would be on you to provide a quotable source. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Absence in Mesopotamia (?)

While human sacrifice seems to have been practiced in the Levant and the Aegaean (and perhaps Old Kingdom Egypt), it might be notable to point out that in the urban civilizations of Mesopotamia, Assyria and Anatolia (Hittites), it seems to be conspicuously absent. This seems to be due to the use these cultures had for slave labour, and the standard punishment was enslavement, not death. At least in the Hittite laws, the standard punishment for pretty much any serious crime is blinding and enslavement, not death. dab (𒁳) 15:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In China

Funeral human sacrifice was abolished by the Qin Dynasty in 384 BC I don't think this is true. The First Emperor (221 BCE -210 BCE) was purportedly buried with a great number of live sacrifices, doesn't this mean that the Qin still practiced this tradition or was this a one time exception from the rule? Ctamigi (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The section referring to Human Sacrifice in the East makes mention of Sikhism. Perhpas it was worded incorrectly, but the intent seems at best to misrepresent Sikhism. Sikhism explicitly forbids Sati. Did it still go on after the creation of sikhism among hindus, yes. Did it still go on after the British outlawed it, yes. The way the article is written makes it seem as if Sikhism condones sati. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is one of the major and most talked about differences between Sikhism and the prevailing religious superstitions of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.165.150 (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tollundman2.jpg

The image Image:Tollundman2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Phoenicia

Isn't Phoenicia in the Levant? Plus the Phoenicians were aslo as Semitic people, so I think the two sections should be condensed into one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.249.239 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

lovely vandalism

Retrieved from Human sacrifice (Revision as of 07:32, 25 March 2007)

“ Sacrifices to Xipe Totec were bound to a post and shot full of arrows. The dead victim would be skinned and a priest would use the skin. Earth mother Teteoinnan required flayed female victims. OMG Thats wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!! ”

I didn't revert the bold-type. It made me laugh! —Cesar Tort 21:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... presumably this describes two different kinds of sacrifice. Elsewise, how would you flay a body that had been shot full of arrows? --Richard 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course: Xipe-Totec, “Our Lord the Flayed One” (who demanded sacrifices in the month tlacaxipehualiztli) is a male god; Teteo inan (who demanded sacrifices in the month ochpaniztli), a female goddess. —Cesar Tort 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you skin something after your archer have just filled it with arrows. Brings new meaning to the term a "holy robe" lol --71.101.159.205 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Witch Burnings

Would this count as a form of human sacrifice? Although Witch Burnings seemed to lack the ritualistic aspect that the sacrifices of many other societies entailed, I don't see all that much of a difference between killing someone to appease an Aztec war god and killing someone to appease the Christian god. Does the nature of with burning categorize it as a form of persecution instead of sacrifice? Just curious.

I wouldnt consider witch burning sacrifice. During that time witches were hunted down and killed. Back then capital punishment burning at the stake. They were just killing the witches not sacrificing them. And besides the Christian God never instructed those people to sacrifice witches to Him. I would consider witch burners as vigilantes taking the law into their own hands. --71.101.159.205 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

Might Islamic terrorism not also count as a form of human sacrifice? The terrorists dedicate themselves to God, and then they board airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers. Or they blow themselves up, or something. They see that as a religious duty. Some might see it as an act of human sacrifice. 204.52.215.107 07:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Might Christian crusading not also count as a form of human sacrifice? The crusaders dedicate themselves to God, then invade foreign countries and massacre the inhabitants. They see that as a religious duty. Some might see it as a form of human sacrifice. Imc 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry about the trolling. It just came over me after reading through the previous note. IMC.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imc (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, though members of both of these abrahamic religions would likely vehemently disagree with these conceptions and want to remove them. I could categorize both of those examples (Islamic Terrorism, Christian Imperialism) as forms of human sacrifice but as the article tends to focus on societally implemented ritual human sacrifice, those acts listed (which would more likely fall within the realm of opression or theocide) are not likely to find themselves on this page. Even the death pentaly, in my opinion, serves to appease the American deification of "Justice". (I don't necessarily disagree with the death penalty, this is just my observation.) - Xvall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

warfare, and especially religious war, and capital punishment, especially capital punishment over religious issues, may indeed be considered human sacrifice. But the discussion of this needs to be based on WP:RS of course. The over-arching topic is religious violence. dab (𒁳) 09:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Look the Christian God which the crusaders were "fighting for" never instructed them to massacare the Muslims who had captured Jerusalem. That was Pope Urban who told them to do that, see also the First Crusade[[2]]. We need to make sure we are not mixing in human actions with God's plan --71.101.159.205 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Central America

The section entitled "Central America" should be renamed "Middle America" or "Mesoamerica", as much of the information is about Mexico, which is not in Central America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoplophile (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Masonic ritual killing

It would be interesting of the article could discuss some of the alleged cases of Masonic ritual killing. For instance, Vatican banker Roberto Calvi was repotedly assassinated by P2 Masonic leaders in what investigators have described as a ritual sacrifice. ADM (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Funeral human sacrifice was abolished by the Qin Dynasty in 384 BC."

384 BC was Zhou dynasty... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.96.138 (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

oops.--dab (𒁳) 06:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Accusations"

The only section of this article where the term "accusations" is used is in the section on "blood libel." In the interest of racial, religious, and cultural impartiality, shouldn't the term "accusations" be used universally throughout the article? Bowdlerized (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian sacrifice

Christians sacrificed "witches" to God to save the populace. Why isn't this listed in the article? Jyrinnis 14:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a sacrifice. Goldfritha 00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, yes it was. They believed God would be pleased and unplague their lands or whatever they wanted if they killed off a few "evil" members of the community. Jyrinnis 08:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. They believed that these people had deliberately caused magical harm and were properly punished by death.

Furthermore, executing people for witchcraft was common about people who did sacrifice to the gods to remove harm. The largest witch hunts, in terms of victims, on record occured in the (pagan) Roman Republic. The distinction is quite clear, even to those who practiced both. Goldfritha 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jyrinnis, it was a form of sacrifice. They were evil in the Christian eyes, but according to written or oral beliefs brought upon by the Christian myth. Any neo-pagan would agree with me that they were a form of ritual sacrifice, a pharmakos ritual which according to the scholar Hughes is classified as a human sacrifice, thus burning witches = pharmakos rite pharmakos = ritual human sacrifice, burning witches = human sacrifice. And on the other hand, Pagan victims all over the world were at least 10 times more than the Christian ones. I wrote a university paper on christian martyrs in the late roman empire, I can tell you that not more than 2000 Christians have been killer over 200 years and this is too high according to certain scholars. If we talk about the neo-platonist martyrs of Alexandria (killed by the Christian mob), murder of pagan priests, witch hunts, forced conversion and murder of new world people we reach a statistic which is huge in number of victims. Thus yes I would add a paragraph concerning christian sacrifice. Keltica

Your references use the term too loosely. The meaning of human sacrifice is rather more precise than that. Goldfritha 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm very precise. I'm concentrating on ritual murder of pagans being justified by "God", it always represents at least a pharmakos which is a form of human sacrifice. I wouldn't mention it entirely in this article, I would place a link to a different article on this topic. Keltica

I think this is a stupid point. Witches were accused of killing people, destroying crops, etc. Murder for example clearing falls under legal jurisdiction. Just because our modernist world doesn't believe that a witch could not commit murder in a supernatural way, does not not mean that they still were not under legal jurisdiction of the time. To read it any other way is to be anachronistic. Also, if people are going to claim all the "staggering statistics" of people murdered by Christians, we might as well add the Christians murdered under Pagan Roman. By the definition provided we might as well include all the genocides of the last century committed by (pseudo)science and godless ideologies, as those killed under the Great Leap Forward were more numerous than those claimed to be killed under any religious war. I vote to keep this article pared down to REAL human sacrifices.

Just read the official reasons for MURDERING witches and the survivors of the ancient pagan creeds of heathens from the new world, you will clearly see that it is a form of human sacrifice, legal jurisdiction is an excuse to cover it and often isn't always employed, take the case of Joan of Arc.

I think it is offensive to all pagans of the ancient times and modern times to label these murders as legal murders of people who infringe the law, I feel that we are protecting the church too much. I admit it, I'm not a Christian and I have strong personal reasons for this but it doesn't mean I'm trying to be objective. Anyways I can tell you that Christian martyrs are a lot less thsan pagan martyrs across the centuries, also because in many pagan societies Christians were tolerated in some way or another. The Christian society (late antiquity, mediaeval and renaissance) was far less tolerant. I agree with you it doesn't have a place on this page, but it deserves an article. I shall write it soon. This encyclopaedia should be open-minded, we shouldn't be protecting the Church or Christianity itself, this creed has spilt a lot of blood in history and still hides evil. Keltica

I've read the official reasons. They do not contain what you claim. Furthermore, the evidence that the people executed for witcraft were not "survivors of the ancient pagan creeds" is rather stronger than you seem to be aware.Goldfritha 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If I said that I didn't mean it, paganism has evolved in time. It was a form of religious intolerance which brought upon the ritual murder of "different" beings. You cannot deny that to the eyes of the populace these were scapegoat rituals. Keltica

"If I said that" -- your pronoun lacks a referent. What are you denying meaning? And given that your words are directly above mine, why should there be any question about what you said?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the witchcraft trials sprung from "religious intolerance" because there is no evidence either that the people executed were practicing a different religion, or that a specific religion was the inspiration for the trials -- seeing as people have been executed for witchcraft all over the world, under every stripe of religion, and the biggest witch trials on record occured in the (pagan) Roman Republic.

And in the eyes of the populace, they were certainly not scapegoat rituals. Goldfritha 16:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

All you said is open to discussion. And I feel you're biased. On the other hand your point regarding sacrifices under the Roman Republic is false. There were far more victims for witch trials. I assure you, it is true. Keltica (and btw, If I said that, I didn't mean it is correct)

I assure you, I have the information on the Roman Republic from a reliable, published source. And you give a few indication of bias yourself.Goldfritha 23:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please cite it then. Because I can guarantee that my professor in University demonstrated that everything that is said about martyrdom and sacrifice in the Roman Republic is a Christian invention. I don't want to quarrel, but it's absurd to leave out the bloodthirsty crimes of the Christians in later ages. I'm going to write the article and you're welcome to add to it. But an encyclopaedia should be a bearer of truth and unbiased and it cannot be written by Christians alone. Keltica

While I'm looking it up -- you do realize that the Roman Republic was gone before Christianity was around? Goldfritha 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant human sacrifice in the Roman Republic and Martyrdom during the Empire. Keltica

Hey you should continue the roman subject on the "Roman Sacrifice" section. Hi Keltica. I reply to you the same i answered to Novium there --Ozomatli-Tepoztli 04:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

While the argument for spectral evidence in murder is a good point what about the murder of Jews by Christians, throughout the Rhine region during the Black Death in Europe, around the 1340s. The History Channel’s "THE PLAGUE" notes that while some groups (falsely) blamed Jews for poisoning wells many Christians simply believed that the plague was caused by their God's displeasure at the toleration of Jews. As a result they burned many Jews at the stake and attacked Jewish communities to appease God and end the plague. As for the legal arguments many of these burnings were extrajudicial and officially condemned by Pope Clement VI via a papal bull on July 6, 1348. I am simply curious whether these would be considered human sacrifices and if not why not?

Secondly what about persons burned during the medieval and renaissance period under heresy laws in Western Europe, the vast majority of these people were Christian but had different interpretations of Christianity then the State sponsored Churches and were burned to cleanse them and atone for their heresy. (In actually a whole host of other reasons existed but they were not behind the public reasoning for the burnings). Again just curious whether these would be considered human sacrifices and if not why not?Bored college student 08:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a sacrifice is an offering to God or to a God, right? That's the criteria by which Christians have never performed human sacrifice. They burned witches, slaughtered Muslims and Jews, and behaved badly in all sorts of ways, but they never killed people as an offering to God. Their misdeeds belong in other articles (eg. moral panic, or whatever), not here. Niten (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Chinese characters

An editor has inserted characters that look ??? in most computers. Since this article is not specific about the Chinese, the characters that in most computers appear as ??? ought to be removed. —Cesar Tort 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Chinese characters in parentheses after Ximen Bao, they display fine on my screen. --Richard 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But would those characters display fine in most computers? You are a wikipedian and perhaps have uploaded some programs; most people who read it have not. —Cesar Tort 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now checked in other PCs and the characters do not appear. As I said: this is not a technical article on Chinese matters and the odd characters ought to be removed. —Cesar Tort 01:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; other PCs should improve... :P They work fine on my system, and they're relevant and appropriate. They're used throughout Wikipedia. A few ??'s don't bother non-readers more than actual characters would, and they are the only accurate way to render the name for readers. Niten (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What's a dispute?

Is it really necessary to note disagreement about Phoenician/Carthaginian human sacrifice when the only cited naysayer (note 14) speaks of "my Phoenician Canaanites ancestors" on the www.phoenicia.org website? There are doubtless many more people who disbelieve in the Holocaust, or know Mohammed ElBaradei hid Saddam's WMDs to make trouble for President Bush... Wouldn't Wikipedia be better off taking a little less notice of crackpots and special pleaders?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DMaclKnapp (talk • contribs)

Absolutely agree. There's a lot of denialism about these matters. Unfortunately this article is no longer in my watchlist. —Cesar Tort 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more information and evidence on those topics. There's an acknowledged trend for people to attribute cannibalism, child sacrifice, and other barbaric activities to their enemies. So, it's important to take ancient anecdotes with a grain of salt. OTOH, yes, we could use better sources... Niten (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Greek and Roman antiquity

This section is a jumble of unsourced stuff, with no citation of the plentiful secondary sources on this topic and some dubious claims. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

-I believe there are inaccuracies regarding this section : According to Pausanius, humans were sacrificed atop Mount Lyceum.

-"...town of Salamis, Cyprus...priest slaying a human victim to Zeus" Lactantius

-Euseb., Praep. Ev., iv 17 mentions among peoples practicing human sacrifices, Rhodes, Salamis, Heliopolis, Chios, Tenedos, Lacedaemon, Arcadia, and Athens.

-Sacrifices for Dionysus the Cannibal, Plutarch Themist., 13; Porphyr., Abst., 11 55

-Sacrifices to Zeus Laphystius, Herodoyus vii

-Clemens Alexandrinus (i36) mentions Messinians sacrificing to Zeus, Taurians to Artemis. Pella, to Peleus and Chiron. Cretans to Zeus. Lesbos to Dionysus.

-Consult Geusius de Victimis Humanis (1699)70.19.172.172 (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Uganda

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8441813.stm --Pjacobi (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Witch Burning

I'm not sure witch burnings are sacrifices as they seem to have been executions. However like an auto da fé, they may have been presented as executions whilst taking on sacrificial overtones. —joeFriday— ^{talk}  19:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

the article is already aware of the fact that executions and human sacrifice cannot be separated in any objective manner. Both are ritualized killing sanctioned by society. How the society goes about rationalizing them is a case-by-case question and ultimately ideological in any case. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Honor Killings

Should honor killings by Muslims be included? Since the victim is killed not so much as a punishment but to regain the family's honor, this seems akin to sacrifice. —joeFriday— ^{talk}  19:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

-I would say they deserve an honourable mention (ha!) ritualistic and what have you, but generally sacrifices are supposed to be "perfect," which of course they do NOT consider the unfortunate young lass to be. As the homocide would tend to indicate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.88.189 (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Indian Poors secrifice their children for Prosperity.

Indian Poors secrifice their children for Prosperity.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=79072

Parents sacrificing sons to be prosperous

Press Trust of India Posted online: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 at 1643 hours IST

Baripada (Orissa), January 3: Lured by promises of prosperity, a couple has allegedly sacrificed their two sons in Orissa's northern district of Mayurbahanj Padmalochan Gan and his wife Tuni had been advised by a 'tantric' to sacrifice their sons Harish (9) and Dipu (7) and hold a puja to set themselves on the path to prosperity, police said on Wednesday. The couple sacrificed their sons at their home at Tilapada village, about 55 km from here, after observing some rituals in the presence of the tantrik, identified as Jagannath Tudu, police said. Though the incident had occurred about a week ago it came to light only this morning, when the foul smell emanating from the decomposed bodies alerted the local people. They found the bodies of the two boys and informed the police, which have arrested the couple. The tantrik is absconding. The couple also has a two-month-old daughter, who had been spared, police said.

vkvora 04:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that despite a ban there are many reported modern sacrifices in rural areas. Should this be included? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8624269.stm and a Time article from 2002 on the same subject http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,322673,00.html 110.67.99.40 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)weavehole

Why

This may sound like a weird question, but why do primitive cultures sacrifice humans or animals. I know the point is to please or appease a god or spirit, but is there any way to know what these people thought the supernatural beings wanted the sacrifices for? For example, when the biblical god told Abraham to sacrifice his son and then a ram, what would Yehwey have done with either of these after they had been sacrificed? Would he have (somehow) consumed their soul, for example? Would he have just been pleased that Abraham didn't have a ram to eat or a son, deriving pleasure from his lose? Do we just not have the answers to these questions. JesseHogan 07:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

One possible answer is that people thought that Gods lived above them and they tried throwing stuff up to them and it came back down, but, when they burnt something and the smoke rose up in the air and it smelled good, the people might have thought that the Gods liked burnt offerings. Another possible idea is that people might have thought that since stronger people tend to take what they want, and since the Gods must have been stronger than anyone, then the way to appease the Gods is to give them the best and most valuable items they had. Ever have a dog or cat bring you an animal they just killed? I think it's the same idea. As far as Abraham was concerned; it was a test of his devotion to God. Before that, Abraham acted as though God and he were partners; this showed that God was fully in charge, and God tested Abraham to see how he would react. Some have said that Abraham failed the test because he should have argued on behalf on his son, (as he argued for the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah), but, at that period in time, human sacrifice was too common a practice for Abraham to say no. 204.80.61.10 22:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Thanks for responding. Its interesting that history is replete with animal and human sacrafice but we can only speculate on its logic. Maybe this disparity will get some attention in the article. JesseHogan 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, I could have looked at the article on sacrifice. It has a list of explainations. JesseHogan 07:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For an explanation of the role of "burnt offerings" in Greek religion read "The Birds" by Aristophanes. --151.48.97.122 10:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I never really thought about it that way of why people make sacrifices, but you have a point with the way that animals bring things that they catch to their masters. We may look down on human and animal sacrifice now but we still sacrifice things to our god. Monks sacrifice interaction with people. Chistians may sacrifice their Sunday to go to church. Buddist sacrifice their time in prayer or medittation. So whether it is a dead animal or a day of the week people still give something to their god no matter what religion. It is kind of interesting when you look at it. --71.101.159.205 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In Judaism/Christianity, animal sacrifice was desigened to be a forshadowing of the sacrifce Christ would eventually make. God specificly states that He derives no pleasure from sacrifice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.61.255 (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Purushamedha" Refuted

Please take a look at Section 13, Chapter 6, Brahmana 2 of the Satapatha Brahmana. It clearly states that the victims are supposed to be released unharmed. Hokie Tech (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Hokie Tech

Sacrifices to Kali

Arthur Avalon's commentary on the Hymn to Kali states that the animals listed for sacrifice are actually symbols for the six enemies:

This leads one to point out that the Hymn has other than these gross (Sthūla) meanings. In Brāhamanism everything has three aspects—Supreme (Para), Subtle (Sūkṣma) and Gross (Sthūla). Thus the nineteenth Śloka when referring to the sacrifice of various animals and of man himself intends according to the subtle sense the six great sins for which they stand, ranging from Lust (goat) to Pride (man). It is these which must be sacrificed by the knowers who are worshippers of the Mother the age of material sacrifice, so universal throughout the world, having passed away.

We should include this in the article somewhere. Also, we might want to get rid of the link to "lifepositive.com"; that doesn't seem very authoritative. Hokie Tech (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article doesn't discuss the Hymn to Kali at this point. Human sacrifices to Kali are only discussed in the context of the Thuggee cult, which formed in the 17th century.

Based on the information we have available at present, it seems that human sacrifice was more of a tribal practice and not part of Vedic ritual. The syncretism of Vedic ritual and indigenous tribal religion that gave rise to Pauranic Hinduism later introduced human sacrifice to the religious mainstream. This apparently happened around the 7th century AD. Obviously, there is no way to date the antiquity of the ritual practices of the individual Adivasi groups. --dab (𒁳) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "Pauranic Hinduism"? Please see my comments on the talk page for Jarasandha. Hokie Tech (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

By "Pauranic Hinduism" I mean classical, Vedantic, post-Shankara Hinduism as reflected by the Puranas. Basically, what we usually mean by "Hinduism" when no other qualifications are present. The point is that there may or may not have been human sacrifice in "Hinduism" before 700 CE, depending on your definition of "Hinduism" pertaining to that period. After 700 or so, Vedic Brahmanism syncretized with tribal religion and ritual to give rise to what we know as Hinduism today, including Kali, which certainly emerges as a Hindu goddess with her own cult by the 10th century and the Kalika Purana. Your Bhagavata Purana reference below also shows that human sacrifice to Kali had been present from around the 10th century, by which time Kali worship could certainly be considered part of Hinduism. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bachmann,

Have you actually bothered to look at the page containing the Bhagavata Purana translation? Here is a word-by-word translation of the Sanskrit verse:

ye — persons who; tu — but; iha — in this life; vai — indeed; puruṣāḥ — men; puruṣa-medhena — by sacrifice of a man; yajante — worship (the goddess Kālī or Bhadra Kālī); yāḥ — those who; ca — and; striyaḥ — women; nṛ-paśūn — the men used as sacrifice; khādanti — eat; tān — them; ca — and; te — they; paśavaḥ iva — like the animals; nihatāḥ — being slain; yama-sadane — in the abode of Yamarāja; yātayantaḥ — punishing; rakṣaḥ-gaṇāḥ — being Rākṣasas; saunikāḥ — the killers; iva — like; svadhitinā — by a sword; avadāya — cutting to pieces; asṛk — the blood; pibanti — drink; nṛtyanti — dance; ca — and; gāyanti — sing; ca — also; hṛṣyamāṇāḥ — being delighted; yathā — just like; iha — in this world; puruṣa-adāḥ — the man-eaters.

As you can see, the word "yajante" was translated as "worship", and the references to Kali and Bhadra Kali were inserted by the translator (Srila Prabhupada). The original Sanskrit verse contains no reference to Kali. Hokie Tech (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Blood Sacrifice

Could somebody please review the following article of mine to see if it qualifies in the 'external links' section, and please insert it there. Per WP:ELNO #11 one can make exception to the "recognized authority" criterion according to this: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. If this is the case, then it needn't be written by a recognized authority. I think my article is thought-provoking: http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/bloodsac.htm Matswin (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

the section headed "Modern human sacrifice" is ugly

and seems to be a catch-all heap for anything that vaguely resembles human sacrifice (by which I mean "the killing of a human being in offering to supernatural powers"), plus one reliably substantiated (in part) report of the genuine article. And a tacked-on bit about some human sacrifices that occurred over two millenia ago.

Human sacrifice, in the context of religious ritual, still occurs in some traditional religions, for example in muti killings in eastern Africa.

If the article on medicine murder is correct (I don't know offhand), then this isn't actually sacrifice as such, is it.

Some people in India are adherents of a religion called Tantrism. . .

This appears to be the genuine article, but the second quotation needs a reference.

A group of the rich and powerful people gather for an annual mock human sacrifice of an effigy at the Bohemian Club in California.

Silly me, I thought this article was about human sacrifice, not fraternities doing silly things in the woods. Or burning in effigy, for that matter.

In Western cultures no human sacrifice occurs beyond murders committed by serial killers or the largely unsubstantiated Satanic ritual abuse.

Okay. The next sentence has a broken citation to David Icke's website and needs scrutiny. The following one seems to concern a black metal musician looking for Viking credit, but maybe he really believed it, so okay.

Modern occultists consider such sacrifices unnecessary, or use them only in the symbolic form where the volunteer "sacrifice" is not actually killed.

Another sentence about not practicing actual human sacrifice. I don't know, maybe misconceptions need correcting.

Some people have tried to extend the use of sacrifice-related terminology. . . .

This is relevant.

Modern Muslim terrorist suicide bombers as well as Japanese kamikaze pilots can also be claimed to be examples of human (self-)sacrifice.

Sure they can, by someone who wouldn't recognize a blood libel if he were slapped in the face with one. I took this one out.

The original article may have been right with respect to kamikaze pilots. Please see the Preface (page vii) of The Strange World of Human Sacrifice:

In Japanese tales human sacrifice often takes the form of self-sacrifice, and there may well be a line from these early sacrifices to modern kamikaze.

Hokie Tech (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The most prominent example in recent times was undertaken by the Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc.

self-immolation in protest isn't exactly human sacrifice. I took this out too.

Historically prominent human sacrifices include:

• Lindow Man in the United Kingdom
• Tollund Man in Denmark (from the article: At first, Tollund Man was believed to be a rich man who had been ritually sacrificed, but recent analysis suggests that he may simply have been a criminal who was hanged and buried in the peat bog.)

and to crown it, two human sacrifices that are not modern in the slightest, both being over 2,000 years old. (And no mention of why they are historically prominent—because they're preserved so well—just the assertion that they are, indeed, prominent. (And the first is already mentioned in the proper place above. People often don't read the article before they edit it.) I took this text out; the second example, with a shorter parenthetical doubt, might be replaced in the proper section. —Charles P._(Mirv) 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers falls under the definition of self-sacrifice A man or woman who willingly sacrifices their life. If they are volunteering, then I wouldn't consider it to be part of a ritual that is most commonly on a forcible bases. User:hunterkyrie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterkyrie (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Prohibition in the Srimad Bhagavatam

Please refer to Canto 5, Chapter 26, Verse 31 of the Bhagavata Purana. According to Srila Prabhupada's translation:

There are men and women in this world who sacrifice human beings to Bhairava or Bhadra Kālī and then eat their victims' flesh. Those who perform such sacrifices are taken after death to the abode of Yamarāja, where their victims, having taken the form of Rākṣasas, cut them to pieces with sharpened swords. Just as in this world the man-eaters drank their victims' blood, dancing and singing in jubilation, their victims now enjoy drinking the blood of the sacrificers and celebrating in the same way.

Hokie Tech (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting reference, very possibly the oldest reference to human sacrifices to Kali. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. See my comments above. Hokie Tech (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it is not a reference to human sacrifice to Kali, as Kali is not mentioned explicitly. It is a reference to human sacrifice. --dab (𒁳) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Roman Sacrifice

I think it may need some work. Just off the top of my head, early gladitorial games were rarely to the death, IIRC. Additionally, there seems to be a lack of distinction between execution and human sacrifice. The Romans obviously had no problem executing people left and right, but I seem to remember that they had a horror of human sacrifice. The vestal virgin example given in the article, for example, was the punishment for breaking their vows of chastity. Which was supposed to spell doom for Rome, and thus was as treasonous as you could get... so is it really human sacrifice? Novium 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's strange to think that romans had such a horror of human sacrifice since they killed thousands of persons mostly for entertainment... anyway, since you do a celebration to honor some god, some dead ancestor or some deified emperor, it has connotations of human sacrifice...--Ozomatli-Tepoztli 04:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To you, perhaps. I find it strange because I was a classicist, so I'm not just making judgments with no regard of context or history. It's not at all the same. Sacrifice- in the antique religious tradition- had a clear set of conditions and contexts. There were rituals. Simple execution, or the games, did not fill the criteria. 75.54.122.212 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What shocked Romans was child sacrifice by Carthaginians. —Cesar Tort 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the druids. It was human sacrifice, period. They outlawed it six ways from Sunday.75.54.122.212 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In objective ethnographic terms it is always difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish human sacrifice from "simple" execution. This is true of all cultures, not just of Roman antiquity. In pre-modern society, the law is set by the gods, and there can therefore be no distinction between "secular" and "sacral" killings. Capital punishment can only be clearly separated from human sacrifice if it is completely de-ritualized, i.e. casual mass executions by just shooting people on the highway. Such de-ritualized and thus de-sacralized mass killings recur in history (rebellion of Spartacus, French revolution, WWII, Communist China, etc.), but over time, as a society becomes stable, execution of capital punishment will automatically again become highly ritualized. I suspect that the ban of druidism has less to do with a distinction between secular vs. sacral killing, but rather the point that under Roman rule, nobody should be executed for whatever reasons except under Roman law. You cannot allow your subjects to keep their own customs on when and how to kill people because this interferes with your ruling them. This is of course an universal law of empires and not peculiar to the Roman-Celtic situation in any way. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In Ancient Israel

From page 125 of The Strange World of Human Sacrifice:

The harsh critics of the later prophets suggest that at a certain stage and under certain circumstances child sacrifice did indeed belong to the religious belief system and praxis of Ancient Israel. The statement by Ezekiel that YHWH did give Israel 'statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live' (20.25) and the astral character of Yahwism at the end of the monarchic period could refer to the background of that praxis.
Such a praxis pietatis might seem strange to students of religion in the twenty-first century. But in the long run of history it is not that long ago that we were burning witches.

Hokie Tech (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

sure, this is just saying that prior to 600 BC, Israelite religion was simply one among many Levantine cults. The prohibition of human sacrifice ("binding of Isaac"), as well as the term "Judaism", does not apply to that period, it should only be used for the period after 500 BC. For this period (500 BC and later), I think it is undisputed that the prohibition of human sacrifice held good. "Ancient Israel" refers to 1000–600 BC. --dab (𒁳) 09:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tibet

diffs [3][4]

So we have a problem with the Chinese blood libel against the Tibetans. It may be that there were tantric ritual killings in medieval Tibet. But today, Chinese propaganda is trying to demonize Tibetan Buddhism based on that. So we need to be very careful to discuss this based on credible academic sources. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It turns out that there is some circumstantial evidence for human sacrifice in remote corners in Tibet up to the 1950s. Not in Lamaism. The Chinese claims of baby-eating Tibetan lamas is pure blood libel. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In your revision of the section on Tibet, some of the statements appear unreferenced when in fact they should be attributed to their rightful author, ie Grunfeld.--Christian Lassure (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism

The reference to buddhism in the Tantrism section should be clarified. There is zero evidence for Buddhism supporting human sacrifice, but the article as it is might lead people to believe there is. Unless someone can produce evidence of buddhist human sacrifice, I will clarify or remove the reference to buddhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.43.66 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)