Bog Bodies

[antisocialmunky]

I wasn't surprised that a society would look after its disabled, I am aware of the literature and archaeological finds that attest to that. What I find surprising is the idea that someone who had been such an 'expense' to a community should then be sacrificed.

Is it unreasonable to give the thing you spend so much expense on to your god(s)?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Is it unreasonable to give the thing you spend so much expense on to your god(s)?

I don't know. Would you give your child up to your god(s)? (Not a facetious comeback, btw, a serious question about real human behaviour. Sacrifices of someone from within one's own community - especially somebody relatively young - will almost certainly mean that that sacrifice is the child of someone in that community. They will have friends within that community, and these were tight, small communities.)

[Arjos]

I don't know. Would you give your child up to your god(s)?

Afaik for example among the Karthadastim, it was perceived as something of a duty, for whoever happened to hold an elected office or power, to sacrifice either themselves or their own children. For it was thought to be an act that really reached the divine sphere and could "fix" extremely negative situations...

All in all I find quite "empty" to ask such moral/ethical interrogatives, when the contemporaneous (read "of the ancients") values are mostly unknown to us...
Another example are the Eriloz, who killed their elders, because they found them to be liabilities for the whole community. What is reasonable for one, is unthinkable for another etc...

[Brennus]

On the subject of child sacrifice you could also add the examples of Peruvian child sacrifices; again considered a great honour among Inca society. Also within some Australian aboriginal communities traditionally elderly members of the community would remove themselves them from the group and wander off into the bush to die of exposure, once they had become too old to contribute to the survival of their tribe.

[Ca Putt]

I've always thought that bog bodies in germania were primarily the result of executions. Or alternatively burial rites for People that have commited crimes of a specific nature.
You know, Thiefs get their Hand hacked off, murderers get hanged(and displayed) adulterers get dumped in the bog.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Afaik for example among the Karthadastim, it was perceived as something of a duty, for whoever happened to hold an elected office or power, to sacrifice either themselves or their own children. For it was thought to be an act that really reached the divine sphere and could "fix" extremely negative situations...

All in all I find quite "empty" to ask such moral/ethical interrogatives, when the contemporaneous (read "of the ancients") values are mostly unknown to us...
Another example are the Eriloz, who killed their elders, because they found them to be liabilities for the whole community. What is reasonable for one, is unthinkable for another etc...

Hmmmm? he whole question of kathadastim 'child sacrific' is somewhat...up in the air. Strange that the enemies of Rome should be seen as the purveyors of sacrifice while...Rome sacrificed enemies quite liberally (crucifixion, feeding 'enemes' of Rome to beats in the arena...)

What strikes me as odd is the idea that human beings would act counter to human nature. The people that Rome, for example, were willing to 'sacrifice' were...enemies of Rome. The few occasions when Germanic tribes are known to have contemplated sacrifice have been with enemies (the allies of Caesar who represented him to the Seuvi, for example)

What strikes me as odd is that we would simply believe the Roman's version of 'enemies' behaviour in spite of their obvious hypocrisy and in spite of more recent knowledge of such as even primate behavior...almost as if...we'll believe anything the Romans say about how their perceived enemies behaved.

What I think is empty is the idea that groups of people would, without reasonable excuse, act as inhuman. The whole point odf the story of Abraham is... that such behaviour (being willing to sacrifice one's own child) is.. counter to human nature. The story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac has power precisely because it stands against everything any reasonable human being would expect in their life.

[Arjos]

Rather than the "child sacrifices", I was referring to Lancel's analysis of Polybios and others, but I suppose those accounts were biased. Just like other cultures observed in our days...
Letting aside that imo you are following the very same Roman view that: my own morality defines humanity. Let's move on to another example:

Exposure for "deformed" children by several cultures in a diatopic distribution, is that inhuman and therefore never happened and their remains were placed by the Archaeological Committee for Pratical Jokes?
Abraham's story as you've put it, or Kierkegaard really, has validity for the modern values in western society...

BTW it's funny that on one hand you've considered irrational, random violence as an answer and on the other the impossibility for violent, ignorant acts by human beings :P
Still I do not think it speaks for inhumanity, its context can be understood: a community living on a flimsy subsistence balance simply can't take care of certain members. It's an admission of failure/defeat, but for its survival it seems that certain members are/were willing to sacrifice themselves...
Obviously children cannot make such a choice, and for us it's just brutal, but then again we are living quite a comfortable life...

[Rex Somnorum]

Rather than the "child sacrifices", I was referring to Lancel's analysis of Polybios and others, but I suppose those accounts were biased. Just like other cultures observed in our days...
Letting aside that imo you are following the very same Roman view that: my own morality defines humanity.

It's obviously true that morality is relative. But it's just as plausible to suggest that some universal values constrain human actions. Take, for instance, the innate value of human life. In times of extreme stress- famine, drought and war - these values can be eroded, but they persist mainly because no society can survive in their absence. They encourage the interaction and cooperation that are the hallmarks of an organised culture.

Abraham's story as you've put it, or Kierkegaard really, has validity for the modern values in western society...

Which is strange, considering the story of Abraham predates the development of modern western philosophy by several thousand years.

[Arjos]

Which is strange, considering the story of Abraham predates the development of modern western philosophy by several thousand years.

You've missed the point: the emphasis Kierkegaard saw on the human drammatic choice has a certain relevance for us...
For all we know in the past it was seen as human total devotion being rewarded...
Also other cultures can perceive it in a completely different manner...

At the same time, nothing precludes certain values to last for millennia...

Take, for instance, the innate value of human life. In times of extreme stress- famine, drought and war - these values can be eroded, but they persist mainly because no society can survive in their absence. They encourage the interaction and cooperation that are the hallmarks of an organised culture.

So this is innate and an hallmark of organised culture, because soon as said society is threatened it's immediately dropped? Thus having kept that moral in an abstract plain, has ensured that said society survives...
Yup, unbiased logic without any idealisation XD

Your very example shows how certain societies survived without it: interaction and cooperation do not equal the sanctity of life...

[antisocialmunky]

Hmmmm? he whole question of kathadastim 'child sacrific' is somewhat...up in the air. Strange that the enemies of Rome should be seen as the purveyors of sacrifice while...Rome sacrificed enemies quite liberally (crucifixion, feeding 'enemes' of Rome to beats in the arena...)

What strikes me as odd is the idea that human beings would act counter to human nature. The people that Rome, for example, were willing to 'sacrifice' were...enemies of Rome. The few occasions when Germanic tribes are known to have contemplated sacrifice have been with enemies (the allies of Caesar who represented him to the Seuvi, for example)

What strikes me as odd is that we would simply believe the Roman's version of 'enemies' behaviour in spite of their obvious hypocrisy and in spite of more recent knowledge of such as even primate behavior...almost as if...we'll believe anything the Romans say about how their perceived enemies behaved.

What I think is empty is the idea that groups of people would, without reasonable excuse, act as inhuman. The whole point odf the story of Abraham is... that such behaviour (being willing to sacrifice one's own child) is.. counter to human nature. The story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac has power precisely because it stands against everything any reasonable human being would expect in their life.

You should read the account of Ibn Fadlan about the Viking Funeral he witnessed. It one of the few writings that I've read that has captured more or less the mindset of the people involved in such rituals:
http://web.archive.org/web/200804092...ed/risala.html

I don't reproduce it here because its quite long and graphic.