Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!reiher From: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Human Sacrifice II Message-ID: <7475@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 23:41:45 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.7475 Posted: Wed Nov 6 23:41:45 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 03:33:49 EST References: <451@imsvax.UUCP> Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 189 [Apologies for the length of this article. Those who are convinced that Mr. Holden's opinions on human sacrifice are incorrect and have no further interest in the subject might wish to skip this article.] I would like to examine Mr. Holden's claims about human sacrifice in some details. First, let's review his basic argument. As Mr. Holden has earlier stated that he looks with disdain on postings which consist of quotes and rebuttals, I will paraphrase his argument. If I have done so incorrectly, I'm sure Mr. Holden will be kind enough to correct me. The argument, I believe, goes as follows. 1). At some point in the distant past, human sacrifice, and, particularly, child sacrifice, was common in the area of Palestine. The usual form of sacrifice was the firstborn child of a family. The children in question were willingly offered by their own parents. This rite was frequently performed both by the Israelites and their neighbors, the Canaanites, and, for that matter, by all of the ancient peoples of the area. 2). At some later point, this practice fell into disuse. 3). Nothing but a clear and present danger would convince parents to sacrifice their own children. 4). The only danger great enough to cause this phenomenon would be planets flying past the earth, discharging comets at various points, and generally causing a highly traumatic (to understate it) change in the nature of life on Earth. Possibly, the mere presence of Saturn looming directly overhead would be enough. 5). Considering points 1-4, the explanation for the origin and downfall of the custom of child sacrifice in the ancient Near East is that the custom arose either because of the presence of Saturn in the sky or because of the catastrophic events described by Velikovsky in "Worlds in Collision". The natural reason was to propitiate supposed angry gods. After the solar system calmed down, the need for such drastic sacrifices disappeared, so parents no longer offered their children as sacrifices to the gods. As can be seen above, Mr. Holden has not made clear to me whether or not only the actual catastrophes brought on the disasters or whether the mere presence of Saturn looming huge in the skies was sufficient. I do not regard this as a point of particular importance, and am willing to accept either of Mr. Holden's arguments on this point as equally valid (or invalid). Mr. Holden also introduced an element of cannibalism, suggesting that eating of the child sacrifice was a common occurence in the Canaanite/Israelite human sacrificial ceremonies. Mr. Holden argues that this is further evidence in favor of the necessity of a vast calamity to explain these sacrifices, as only the most pressing danger would force parents into eating their own children. I will treat this point separately, in a separate article. Firstly, the occurence and frequency of child sacrifice in this area is not a matter of universal agreement among scholars of the period. In particular, the extent to which the Israelites engaged in the practice is disputed. The evidence in favor of the proposition is that their are several Biblical references to the practice, and injunctions that the Israelites abjure it. Mr. Holden has quoted these in detail. Also, Mr. Holden has sited a source of Jewish legends which upholds this view. The only written material from non-Israelite tribes from this period and area is from the Canaanites. As best I can determine, these do not mention the subject of child sacrifice. Later writers frequently attribute child sacrifice to the peoples of this area. On the whole, I am convinced that the peoples of the Ancient Near East made a practice of child sacrifice. The frequency of it is unclear. Generally, the sacrifice seems to have been the firstborn male child, sometimes the firstborn regardless of sex. In the best documented cases, there is some clear cause for the sacrifice, most frequently the need for the god to intercede in war for his people. In these cases, the child of the king is most often sacrificed, with other children sometimes included in the festivities. Moving on to point 2, obviously, at some point the Israelites and their neighbors stopped practicing this nasty habit. It is worth mentioning, however, that many other ancient or primitive peoples did not stop their use of this practice until much later. For instance, "...the Carthaginian sacrifice of 200 children, when the city was in the last stage of seige." (A. E. Crawles, "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethos", vol VI, p 842.) "Man, Myth, and Magic" (vol 8, p 2184) states that the Carthaginians kept this practice up until 146BC, not coincidentally the date after which the Romans assured that the world heard no more from Carthage. In the huge sacrifice mentioned above, Crawles states that, up to this point, the Carthaginians had fallen into the lax habit of buying slave children to sacrifice, rather than chipping in with their own. The imminent danger of the fall of the city convinced them that the gods were displeased with this fakery, so 200 of their own children marched off to the slaughter. However, we need not go nearly so far back in history to find examples of child sacrifice carried on on a regular basis. For instance, "In the Luritcha tribe of central Australia, 'young children are sometimes killed and eaten...'" (Fraser, in "The Golden Bough", quoting Spencer and Giller in "Native Tribes of Central Australia", p425). And, "The natives of Rook, an island off the east coast of New Guinea, used to kill all their firstborn children; ... They spared the second child, but killed the third, and so on alternately with the rest of the offspring." (Fraser, vol VI, pp 180.) And, "In India, down to the beginnings of the 19th century, the custom of sacrificing a firstborn child to the Ganges was common." (ibid, p 180-181.) Fraser also mentions practices of child sacrifice among the Borans, Kerre, Banna, and Bashada of south Abyssinia; Ugandan tribes; the Senjero of East Africa; the Kutomagal Indians of British Columbia; the Coast Salish Indians; the Indians of Florida; the Indians of Peru; and a pair of Amazonian tribes, the Ximanas and the Cauxanas. These are only the cases known in historical times, and do not count many others which died out earlier. (ibid, pp 180-186.) What does this prove? That, while the Israelites and their neighbors may have stopped sacrificing their children around the supposed time of the Velikovskian catastrophes, many other peoples went on doing so for a considerably longer period of time. This point will be used more explicitly later. As far as point three goes, that naught but a clear and present danger would cause parents to sacrifice their children, well... depends on what you define to be a clear and present danger. "Certain cases of child sacrifice seem to suggest that the child, being in a sense a duplicate of the father, places the life of the father in danger." (Crawles, "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethos", vol VI, p 842) "There is a curious practice ... of sacrificing an individual, generally a child, to remove barrenness from women." (ibid, p 843) And, in the Luritcha tribe mentioned earlier, "...it is not an infrequent custom, when a child is in weak health, to kill a younger and healthier one and then feed the weakling on its flesh, the idea being that this will give the weak child the strength of the stronger one." (Spencer and Giller, p 425) "When unseasonable weather threatened the crops, the Peruvians sacrificed children." (A. de Herrera "Gen. History", ii, 111) And, in a good general description of the types and purposes of human sacrifice, Crawles says "In a true human sacrifice, the victim may be a). a young infant, the firstborn of the family, b). a criminal or prisoner of war, or c). a person of special importance in the eyes of the person or tribe offering the sacrifice. In the first case, we have, in the majority of instances, a sacrifice of primitae, whereby the first fruits of the field, of domestic animals, and of the human family were sacrificed to the deity... The third case is rather different; the god has to be appeased by his own people; a calamity or plague has to be averted, or some prize as victory in battle has to be obtained; the most valuable gift the tribe can offer has, therefore, tob e presented in payment for the boon; the king's eldest son must be offered as burnt-offering that there may be 'great wrath' against the enemy". (Crawles, p 842) Thus, we see that there are many, many reasons to sacrifice one of one's own children. Crashing planets aren't necessary. A little glory in war (remember Agammemnon?), bad crops, pestilence, plague, or a vague sense of uneasiness in the father may all cause child sacrifices. Thus, unless Mr. Holden can present some evidence that the sacrifices of the ancient peoples of Palestine were particularly numerous, I see no reason we must invoke Velikovskian catastrophes to account for them. Even if he could, he would first have to demonstrate that no lesser event caused such an excess of religious fervour. Everyday, old fashioned Earth-style calamities, some of them man-made, will explain matters quite satisfactorially. Therefore, I have shown that, while the peoples in question did perform child sacrifices, it is completely unnecessary to suggest troubles in the heavens to explain those sacrifices. Moreover, if, as Mr. Holden suggests, planetary catastrophes are the only plausible explanations for mass child sacrifices, how does he explain the many other peoples of the world who willingly slaughtered their children up into the 19th century AD? In particular, we know that the Carthaginians, who used almost exactly the same religious forms as the Semitic peoples of the Near East, went on sacrificing their own children literally up to the point when their city was destroyed. In a subsequent article, I will deal with the issue of cannibalism. The approach will be the same, a demonstration that many peoples eat their own children for reasons much less drastic than near-misses by planets and comets. Those who need no further convincing may safely skip that article. -- Peter Reiher reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher