Talk:Human sacrifice/Archive 2

Slavic people
Removed: According to sixth century Byzantine emperor Mauricius's Strategikon wrote of the Slavs... etc.

Explanation: The reference was put to explain later comment by Leo the Deacon. Since that comment is removed, there is no reason for this reference to exist.

Replaced: In the 10th century, Persian explorer Ahmad ibn Rustah described funerary rights for the Rus included the sacrifice of a young female slave.

Replaced with: Similar to sati custom in hinduism in Al-Masudi's work Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems he explains burial rite of Slavic high noble that died, during which one of the women of his household would voluntarily sacrifice herself. Usually it was one of the daughters of the noble, as Ibn Fadlan informs us (Ibn Fadlan and the Rusiyyah, James E. Montgomery., Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies,Volume III, 2000. pp. 1-25.).

Explanation: Same principle as in sati custom in hinduism, as Ibn Fadlan informs us. There is no reason to mention rather seldom practice if sati is not mentioned in the article also. You have far better sources in Al-Masudi's work Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems where on pages 408., 415. and 416., Vol I, he explains burial practices of Slavs. By the way, the sacrifice of a female was voluntarily and made only when high noble died. That one of the women of his household would voluntarily sacrifice herself. Usually it was one of the daughters of the noble, as Ibn Fadlan informs us (Ibn Fadlan and the Rusiyyah, James E. Montgomery., Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies,Volume III, 2000. pp. 1-25.).

Removed: Leo the Deacon describes prisoner sacrifice by the Rus lead by Sviatoslav during the Russo-Byzantine War "in accordance with their ancestral custom."

Explanation: There is no evidence to support claim that this was indeed a human sacrifice. Furthermore, Leo the Deacon continues: "For they are said to addicted to Hellenic mysteries, and to make sacrifices and libations to the dead in the Hellenic fashion, having been initiated in these things either by their own philosophers, Anacharsis and Zamolxis, or by comrades of Achilles." (cited in "The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century",. Alice-Mary Talbot, Denis F. Sullivan, pp. 193-194.). In the other words this section has nothing to do with Slavic religion whatsoever. Authors hypothesize that this passage is actually rewrite of Herodotus (ibid). Also, 6th century emperor Mauricius, 6th century Byzantine scholar Procopius of Caesarea and 10th century emperor Constantine Porphyrogennetos make no mention of human sacrifices among Slavs. On the contrary, emperor Mauricius praises humane attitude of Slavs towards prisoners, although they were his enemies (Tiberius Augustus, Flavius Mauricius. Strategikon, Book XI - Characteristics and Tactics of Various Peoples.).

Replaced: According to the 12th century Russian Primary Chronicle, prisoners of war were sacrificed to Perun, the Slavic god of war. Sacrifices to pagan gods, along with paganism itself, were banned after the Baptism of Rus by Prince Vladimir I in the 980s.

Replaced with: According to the 14th or 15th editions of Russian Primary Chronicle, prince Vladimir attempted to reform Slavic religion by establishing the thunder-god, Perun, as a supreme deity and introducing human sacrifices. He tried to sacrifice young Cristian named Ioann to god Perun in 980., but he and his father Fyodor were killed by angry mob after insulting Slavic deities. Prince Vladimir converted to Christianity in 988. abandoning his earlier practices.

Explantion: To describe Perun as god of war is to show utter lack of knowledge on the topic. First of all, almost every Slavic male god was god of war. Second, Perun was primarily god of thunder and justice (Rex Germanorum - populos Sclavorum, Ivo Vukchevich, University Center Press, Santa Barbara California, USA, 2001., pp.27-28) and that it was practice to invoke him when giving oath of great importance and it was in name of Perun that oath breakers were killed it is easy to understand how carrying out sentence could be seen as human sacrifice in the eyes of Christians. Particularly if it was them that broke the oath in the first place (peace treaty between grand prince Oleg and emperor Leo in 907. and peace treaty between grand prince Igor and Byzantium in 945. were both sealed by making an oath to Perun). Russian Primary Chronicle was indeed compiled at the beginning of the 12th century, however the original was lost and in the reference is not clear whether the author uses 14th century Laurentian codex or 15th century Hypatian codex. Both were significantly edited for various reasons. Furthermore, it describes events in Kievan Rus, just a fraction of Slavic world. Description of human sacrifice mentions two victims by name, while indicated that it was prince Vladimir himself that introduced human sacrifices in 980. It is not clear whether these two were only victims or not, but with conversion to Christianity just 8 years later (or whenever prince Vladimir changed his mind about sacrificing humans), the alleged practice of sacrificing humans lasted very briefly and was limited to Kiev, with rather insignificant number of victims. It needs to be point out that Russian Primary Chronicle was edited in a manner to glorify prince Vladimir. Here is just a tiny sample of references on Perun: etc. I'm not even sure that the event that is described can be qualified as human sacrifice, but since there was intent to make a human sacrifice, I'll leave it be.
 * Überlegungen zur vorchristlichen Religion der Slaven im Lichte der slavischen Sprachwissenschaft, Oleg Trubachyov, Z. slav. Philol. – 1994. – Bd. LIV. – S. 1–20.
 * Na sladach kultu Peruna, Machnik J., Dawna kultura. R. 1955. Warszawa, 1955. Z. 3. S. 97-176;
 * Sprawca Piorunуw w mitologii clowianskiej, Gieysztor A., Ars historica, Poznan, 1976
 * К этимологии балтийского и славянского названий бога грома, Иванов В. В., Вопросы славянского языкознания, в. 3, М., 1958
 * Трагови Перунова култа код Јужних словена, Филиповић М., Гласник Земаљског музеја у Сарајеву. Нова сериjа, t. 3, Сарајево, 1948
 * Топор как символ Перуна в древнерусском язычестве, Даркевич., Советская археология В. П. 1961. № 4.
 * "Slavic religion", Gimbutas, M., The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 13, ed. Mircea Eliade, New York: Macmillan, 1987, pp. 353-361.
 * Perkunas/Perun: Thunder God of the Balts and Slavs, Gimbutas, M., The Journal of Indo-European Studies, 1973, pp. 466 - 479
 * O Perunovom kultu kod Južnih Slovena, P.Z. Petrović, Glasnik 1-2, 1952.
 * O Perunovu kultu u Istri, Historijski zbornik 6, 1954.

Removed: Archeological findings indicate that the practice may have been widespread, at least among slaves, judging from mass graves containing the cremated fragments of a number of different people.

Explanation: Unsubstantiated claim. How exactly does "cremated fragments of a number of different people" prove that human sacrifice was "widespread", or that human sacrifice existed at all, for that matter?! Slavic burial rites included cremation and remains of nobles were treated with more respect than remains of commoners. In what way does it spell human sacrifice?

This section is still not completed since Western primary sources need to be added and exact citation from Russian Primary Chronicle as a primary source, though heavily edited several times.

Zvezdara Forest (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Replaced: According to the 14th or 15th editions of Russian Primary Chronicle, prince Vladimir attempted to reform Slavic religion by establishing the thunder-god, Perun, as a supreme deity and introducing human sacrifices. He tried to sacrifice young Cristian named Ioann to god Perun in 980., but he and his father Fyodor were killed by angry mob after insulting Slavic deities.

Replaced with: According to the 14th century and 15th century editions of Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian codex and Hypatian codex), prince Vladimir attempted to reform Slavic religion by establishing the thunder-god, Perun, as a supreme deity and introducing human sacrifices. After successful military campaign he tried to sacrifice young Varyag to god Perun in 983., but the Varayg and his father were killed by angry mob after insulting Slavic deities.

Explanation: After consulting the originals of Laurentian codex, Hypatian codex and their translations to Russian, English and Serbian.

Zvezdara Forest (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This site operates off of secondary sources whenever possible, not original research or personal interpretation of primary sources. When primary sources are used, we can only summarize the text without explanation.  This sort of thing has been explained to you before, don't be tendentious.  Do not remove that section again.  Quit trying to whitewash this article with your original research.  The sources cover the different evidence human sacrifice, both for and against.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Strategikon and Leo the Deacon, when we are forced to use primary sources, we do not comment on them and we do not put our own research into them. We do not cross reference them with other sources that are not specifically about the source being used.  We only summarize what the source says on the subject and nothing else.
 * Regarding the "unsubstantiated" claim of human sacrifices: that too had a secondary source, which cited different archeological studies.
 * Regarding your strawman argument about which edition of the Primary chronicle is being used, this sort of issue is why we use secondary resources. There was a reference that supported the statement concerning the Primary Chronicle mentioning human sacrifice.  Your own original research does not beat a secondary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Only we are not "forced" to use primary sources. You yourself referenced Leo the Deacon from a secondary source that claims the passage in question is rewrite of Herodotus. Also, Leo the Deacon clearly mentions Hellenic religion, not Slavic. In what way that passage is relevant to this section of the article?! Furthermore, phrase "ancestral custom" is vague at best, and can mean a lot of things, among which human sacrifice is just one of many possibilities.Zvezdara Forest (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What "different archeological studies"?! None is referenced in the section. And remains of cremated bodies in a culture where the burial rites include cremation is no evidence of human sacrifice. Zvezdara Forest (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What "straw man argument"?! I've stated a simple fact - the earliest manuscripts of the Russian Primary Chronicle are from 14th and 15th century (Laurentian codex and Hypatian codex, respectively ). In what way does it spell straw man argument?!
 * There is no secondary source that can change what is written in Russian Primary Chronicle, and if that secondary source claims that Russian Primary Chronicle says something it doesn't, than that secondary source is either flawed or not using the text of Russian Primary Chronicle. However, no reference in the section is given for this claim. The reference you've given is simply a translation of Russian Primary Chronicle.Zvezdara Forest (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given you enough references, primary and secondary sources to show that the section that you've written is original research or personal interpretation that has not been backed up by primary and secondary sources. I've taken an effort to write down an explanation for every change I've made backing it up by primary and secondary sources. Please, take time to at least read it, if you don't have the time examine the references. I have no problem to admit that I'm wrong. I'm only human after all, and as we all, can make mistakes from time to time, but I need to see for myself a hard evidence that I'm wrong. Such an evidence regarding this section of the article, so far I've not seen. If you feel that I'm wrong, please make an effort and provide such an evidence. If I may suggest start with Russian Primary Chronicle.
 * I do find your claims of me using straw man argument and whitewashing to be bordering insults. Please, in the future refrain yourself from such a style of discussion and base your complains strictly on the sources.
 * I hope you understand that further disruptive behavior on your behalf will result in me filing a report to the administrator.

Zvezdara Forest (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Zvezdara Forest (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not thread comments, it makes the discussion harder to follow. By all means get other editors involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Political-war propaganda and human sacrifice.
Often it is difficult to know the true for human sacrifice indeed for example Carthage. The human sacrifice wa a important subject to political propaganda. Often the romans/and greeks used this accuse against the enemies. Stop the human sacrifices was one of the themes that were used to finance the Scipio campaign against Carthage.

The economic crisis of Carthage and the Roman embargo probably has led to an increase in infant mortality from malnutrition, the Tofets are concetrated in the time. The Romans used cinically the accuse.

In the late Roman Empire, Christians and pagans accused each other of human sacrifices. I remember two events. The persecution against Christians by Nero and destruction of the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria obviously in the two events the accuses were false.

A bit like in Europe in the nineteenth century it was said that the Communists and Jews eat children. It was the same accuse that existed in Roman Empire agains the Christians.

I think the we must write a some word on this..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.77.167 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In Judaism
I have blanked the piece on "Human sacrifice is permitted in certain circumstances in Judaism" inserted by. This isn't funny. --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The user TrtaTrticTrtinir is a troll. I've had my account for a long time, but I rarely spend much time here, so I'm not sure how to report him/her. He/she is the one who added the anti-Semitic language to the Judaism section, accusing Jews of killing and drinking the blood of Christian children as a "secret" holiday ritual. *eyeroll*

If someone could help me figure out how to report this troll, I'd appreciate it. Oktoberain (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Oktoberain
 * No need. I've warned him he'll be blocked if he does it again. If he does, and I'm not around, take it to WP:ANI. dougweller (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Leviticus 27:29 orders that someone who has been "devoted" to the Lord (in the same way that land, houses, animals can be devoted) must be put to death, and cannot be ransomed. This has been cited as an example of human sacrifice in Biblical times. The language is pretty clear and it will take some contortions to escape that meaning. Or if I'm wrong, it should at least be mentioned, and the misunderstanding explained. 67.86.225.217 (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)captcrisis

what is "O-Kee-Pa Ceremony"?
When I went to the article Mandan linked through the caption of the picture The Last Race, Mandan O-Kee-Pa Ceremony I found no reference to human sacrifice. Ritual self-torture, yes, but not sacrifice. --199.91.207.3 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Harappan Human Sacrifice
Please see page 46 of the book Archaeology and World Religion by Timothy Insoll:

"Both animal sacrifice and human sacrifice in some form have also been inferred for the Harappan civilization. A scene on a seal from Harappa shows a man trying to kill a buffalo, and in the same scene there is a seated figure suggesting the presence of a deity. A seal from Kalibangan shows a human figure being struck down before a deity.  Animal sacrifice is common in modern Hinduism, and human sacrifice was not entirely unknown in ancient India."Hokie Tech (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsernameunavailableFCKU (talk • contribs) 06:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From page 89 of the book Cultural History of India by Om Prakash:

"A sealing from Harappa shows on the obverse a nude female figure, turned upside down with outspread legs and a plant issuing from the womb. On the reverse of this sealing is depicted a man with a sickle in his hand and a woman seated on the ground with hand raised in the posture of prayer. Obviously this depicts human sacrifice in honour of the Mother-goddess."
 * Hokie Tech (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Seals and reliefs showing human figures struck down by a deity don't necessarily depict human sacrifice. Figures of gods killing demons can be found in most cultures around the world. The figure of a man with a sickle in hand and a woman kneeling to the deity described above might be a depiction of farmers and a fertility goddess. This can be supported by the fact that Harappan people were an agricutural community and mostly men worked in the fields while women prepared food, looked after the household and performed the religious rituals of prayers and offerings. The female figure depicted with a plant growing from the womb may be reference to Mother Earth, who is still regarded as a fertility deity in modern Hinduism, and is never offered any kind of animal sacrifice whatsoever.

From page 173 of A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India by Upinder Singh: "A triangular terracotta cake found at Kalibangan has a carving of a horned deity on one side and an animal being dragged by a rope by a human on the other. The latter has been tentatively interpreted as suggesting the practice of animal sacrifice. A Kalibangan cylinder seal shows a woman flanked by two men who hold her with one hand and raise swords over her head with the other; this may represent a scene of human sacrifice.  The most striking evidence suggesting ritual practices comes from the 'fire altars' found on the citadel mound of Kalibangan." Hokie Tech (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From page 164 of Prehistory and Harappan Civilization by Raj Pruthi:
 * "An interesting sealing from Harappa shows a nude female figure, turned upside down, with out-spread legs and a plant issuing from the womb. The reverse side has a man with a sickle-shaped knife in hand and a woman seated on the ground with hands raised supplication. Obviously this depicts a human sacrifice to the Earth Goddess, portrayed on the obverse with two genii.  A similar figure of the Gupta Age has been discovered in the United Provinces with a lotus issuing out of then neck of the goddess.  Perhaps the sealing represents a river gushing out of the goddess's womb.  The representation of a figure standing in the bifurcated branch of a pipal tree also appears to depict the Mother Goddess.  To this goddess the worshiper brings a goat, probably for sacrifice, and a number of people standing in the lower register appear to be taking part in the sacrifice.  The Pipal tree is still held to be sacred in India, but not associated with the cult of the Mother Goddess.  The goat sacrifice has survived in the worship of Sakit, another form of the Mother Goddess, in which the sacrifice of animals is the most characteristic feature.  It is still uncertain whether the female deity represented by pottery figurines was regarded as a virgin goddess or as the consort of the male god on the seal amulets."
 * Hokie Tech (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

From page 47 of World history from early times to A D 2000: "A large number of terracotta figurines of a female elaborately decorated with a crescent-shaped head-dress have been found in many Indus cities. So, it is assumed that these figurines represent the Mother Goddess. To substantiate further, another seal from Harappa contains a scene depicting a human sacrifice being offered to the Goddess Earth.  Many historians believe that the Shakti cult was then very popular, particularly during the pre-Aryan age." Hokie Tech (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From page 223 of Encyclopedia Indica: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Volume 100:
 * "Another object which throws light on the cult of the Mother Goddess is a sealing from Harappa, on one side of which is depicted a nude female figure upside down with legs drawn apart. A plant is issuing from the womb of the female and a pair of animal 'genii' is also seen on the same side of the sealing. On the reverse is a man holding a sickle-shaped knife, and a woman is seated on the ground in an attitude of supplication.  This scene is said to represent a human sacrifice offered to the Earth Goddess depicted on the obverse."
 * Hokie Tech (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

English variety
I recently reverted an unexplained edit changing "practiced" to "practised", thinking this article is using American English but looking more closely I see a mix of American and British usage. Is there consensus here about the English variety being used? If not, let's settle on one and make it consistent. Joja lozzo  13:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sati is not sacrifice
It's suicide, enforced suicide, or murder, depending on how it occurs and how it is seen. I don't see any justification for seeing it as sacrifice. There are some possible instances of human sacrifice in Hindu cultures, but I see no references to connect them to Sati. I'm therefore removing the references to Sati. Imc 16:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Human sacrifice may be voluntary. A widow agreeing to be immolated is still engaging in human sacrifice just as much as king Domalde, the daughter of Jephthah and the Rus slave girl described by Ibn Fadlan. All of these are instances of perfectly voluntary human sacrifices. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know they agree to it? Have you seen it done? Did she agree? I doubt it. Next time you see a "perfectly voluntary human sacrifice" let it be your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Human sacrifice in Islam
Someone should add information on human sacrifice in Islam. I can't believe that this lengthy article mentions gladiatorial battles and ceremeonial burnings of wives/concubines, but when it comes to Islam it merely says that Islam "opposes" human sacrifices as defined by Islam itself. That's not an objective qualification and seems to flagrantly violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. A Wikipedia article cannot use the Koran as a measuring tool for what is or what is not human sacrifice just as it cannot (and does not, AFAIK) use the Bible as a measuring tool for determining what is and what is not human sacrifice in Christianity. You need to step out of the religious rhetoric/context and judge things for what they are irrespective of what a partiular sacred scripture calls it.

So, to get to the point regarding human sacrifice in Islam... As far as I know, Islam is the only religion that to this day still practices human sacrifice as codified in Islamic Sharia law. Basically, crimes and capital offenses against God and his prophet (Muhammad) such as apostasy and blasphemy merit the ritual killing of the offender usually through his/her beheading or stoning under religious supervision and ceremonial chanting. Quite often, the point is made in these cases that God has been affronted by the offender and that Muslims need to set this straight by killing him in an Islamically sanctioned ritual execution.

In Saudi Arabia, people are executed for blasphemy and apostacy to this very day and there have been cases elsewhere in the Islamic world. Of particular note is also an unknown number of ritual killings for blasphemy and apostacy performed by organisations that are not official government institutions but that nevertheless have their own Islamic courts (e.g. the post-9/11 Talibans, the Islamic Courts militias in Somalia, etc). One recent noted and still pending case was that of a Saudi imam calling for the death of Saudi blogger Hamza Kashgari for alleged apostacy. The Saudi imam cited Koranic passages describing the devastation that God inflicted upon Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that he feared God's reaction and wrath if this blogger's "blasphemy" remained unpunished by the Islamic courts of Saudi Arabia. Abvgd (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What we need are reliable sources calling these human sacrifices. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I agree that a quotation from the Koran does not prove that human sacrifice is not a part of Islam. However, I see no reliable sources indicating that human sacrifice is part of Islam. The things you report happening in Islam are executions--the killing of people as a punishment. That isn't human sacrifice. That execution may be ritual--that still doesn't make it human sacrifice. Joesonyx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Questioning the appropriateness, relevance, NPOV of likening executions to human sacrifice in such a prominent place in article.
The following section which I'm quoting from the beginning of the article looks dubious to me. Human sacrifice is really a very distinct phenomenon to capital punishment. So what if some modern anti-capital punishment people liken capital punishment to human sacrifice and have written that somewhere? This section looks like its inclusion (at least in so prominent a place) could be motivated by anti capital-punishment POV. It is in a sense a blood-libel against the institution of capital punishment.

Quote: Capital punishment has been described by an advocate as a 'thinly disguised manifestation of the ritualized killing of people'.[1] Death by burning historically has aspects of both human sacrifice (Wicker Man, Tophet) and capital punishment (Brazen bull, tunica molesta). Detractors of the death penalty may consider all forms of capital punishment as secular variants of human sacrifice.[2] Similarly, lynching, pogroms and genocides are sometimes interpreted as human sacrifice following Theodor W. Adorno.[3]

Joesonyx (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add that I happen to be anti-capital punishment myself too --- whatever this is on my part it's not touchiness about my own views. Joesonyx (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to be 'bold' and remove the offending piece. Joesonyx (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Execution and sacrifice are distinct in part because it is generally not acceptable to 'offer' a criminal as a sacrifice because the sacrifice must be 'perfect'. Killing a criminal and offering it to the deity is like offering refuse to the deity. While there may be people who believe execution and human sacrifice are equally barbaric, that does not justify equating them in a Wikipedia article, even if some such people have published such opinion. Joesonyx (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

biblical sacrifice
A comment on the article: "Many places in the Hebrew Bible state that human sacrifice was a great abomination; these practices were associated with the worship of foreign gods, and were forbidden. See, however, Judges 11:39, in which the Israelite leader Jephthah offered his daughter as a sacrifice in fulfilment of a vow."


 * Danny, this is an interesting example. However, we need to distinguish between the laws of the Bible (this is what a person should do) and the stories in the Bible (this is what this person did.) In this case, the Bible is not reccomending this course of action; I think it is showing that Jephthah made a tragic error. According to Etz Hayyim: A Torah Commentary, the point of this episode is to teach that this was really quite wrong: "This is a final example of how a formal legalism can lead to violent ends" (p.909)  The same conclusion is reached in the classic "Pentateuch and Haftarahs" by Rabbi Dr. Joseph H. Hertz.  (Herzt quotes a verse from Dante condemning the stupidity of blindly making and following vows.

Classical Jewish commentators, such as David Kimchi, the Ralbag and Abarbanel hold that his vow should never have led to sacrifice. According to Hertz, the rabbis severely blame Jephthah for nothaving his invalid vow annulled. RK 03:02, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look at the verses, there is no judgement being made. It is simply stating the story very matter of factly. Yes, biblical commentators have condemned it. Some claimn that he never actually sacrificed her. All of that is irrelevant. They are imposing later religious values on a piece of text. That is not interpretting the verses, that is apologizing for them. As such, you are providing a medieval or enlightenment view of a erse, and ignoring what it indicates as a reflection of the beliefs of the people it describes. I'm not a big fan of rabbinic apologetics. Danny 03:08, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Danny, the Bible says that the Egyptians enslaved and killed Israelites. Does that mean that God wants us to do this as well? The Bible says that Cain slew Abel; does this mean that God is commanding fratricide? Of course not; We can't read the Bible like this. As you well know, the Bible presents stories of bad people as well as good people. This is not medieval rabbinic apologetics. So why are you insisting that we must read this story as a commandment to peform human sacrifice? I just can't see this anywhere in the text - and I don't know anyone else who reads it that way. Do any modern Bible historians hold that this story is a command for sacrifice? RK


 * As for the fanciful claims that his daughter was never sacrificed, yes, I agree that these are fanciful apologetics, and I am not a fan of them either. However, my main point stand: This story does not command Jews to perform human sacrifice, in any way. It merely offers a tragic story of a man who made a rash vow and stupidly fulfilled it, just like the story of Cain and Abel offers us a tragic story of sibling rivalry, punishment, and semi-redemption. RK 03:29, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nowhere have I said that the Bible commands us to perform human sacrifice. I simply pointed out that the attitudes toward the practice are ambiguous, by pointing to a story which does not make an obvious value judgment about it (I could argue that the Akeidah does not make an obvious value judgment either, but if you can't see it in Jephthah there is no point). The point is especially important because it gives an insight into how the Bible should be tackled. It is not a homogeneous text, despite what the later commentators that you quote above are trying to prove. Furthermore, your comparison of Jephthah to the Egyptians (or Cain for that matter) is just plain misinformed. &#1497;&#1508;&#1514;&#1495; &#1489;&#1491;&#1493;&#1512;&#1493; &#1499;&#1513;&#1502;&#1493;&#1488;&#1500; &#1489;&#1491;&#1493;&#1512;&#1493;. Comparing the attitude toward an Israelite leader to the attitude toward an Israelite enemy is silly. Step back from 2000 years of interpretation and just read the verses. Danny 10:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The Bible does pretty clearly condemn the Egyptians for their treatment of slaves, and clearly condemns Cain for killing Abel. The curious thing about this passage is that it neither praises nor condemns it, which seems to indicate that at the time of the story, human sacrifice was not especially condemned. While the story does convey the message of "Don't make promises that you are not prepared to keep" (which was probably why the story was sufficiently noteworthy to record in the first place), Jephthah was clearly willing to perform human sacrifice. The tragedy in the story (from Jephthah's perpective) was that he had to sacrifice his daughter, not that he had to perform human sacrifice. The story probably would not have been noteworthy had a servant been the object of sacrifice.--RLent 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Danny, I have no idea what you aree talking about, and you have gotten your own thoughts confused. (A) You started off by saying that the Bible approved of human sacrifice, and you argued with me that we must read the verse this way. Now you have totally reversed yourself and have adopted my position, yet you still seem to arguing. I am glad that you now reject your earlier view. RK

Danny, you write "The point is especially important because it gives an insight into how the Bible should be tackled. It is not a homogeneous text, despite what the later commentators that you quote above are trying to prove." Again, I have no idea of what you are talking about. The references I gave made no such point, and I certainly made no such point. None at all. Rather, the point was very simple: They viewed this man's actions as immoral. This has nothing to do with how the Bible was edited, and I can't imagine why you are going off on this tangent. RK

Danny, you write "Furthermore, your comparison of Jephthah to the Egyptians (or Cain for that matter) is just plain misinformed. " No, man, this is a fact. Contrary to your claims, many modern day Bible scholars, as well as traditional rabbis, have made precisely the same point. This has nothing to do with 2,000 year old commentaries. Just because the Bible mentions that something happened does not mean that the Bible views the event as moral or good. You are twisting my words to mean something they don't, and then you are attacking a position I simply do not have. Calm down. RK

Should druid/druidic/etc. be capitalized or lower-case? Ground 21:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From what I read in Judges 11:30-34 (KJV), Jephthah offers to the lord the first thing that will come out of his house, but he appears to live alone with just him and his daughter. In fact it says "she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter." Judges 11:34 (KJV). It does not say if he had any animals which could cometh forth of the doors of his house to meet him. If he hadn't animals, it was quite dumb of Jephthah to offer them to the lord to be a burnt offering. Unless maybe he knew that none but his daughter could come forth from the house. Of course, when he sees her come out of the house, it does upset him. Perhaps, in the heat of war... I don't know. What I wonder here though is why the lord does not stop this sacrifice as was done with Isaac. He commanded Isaac be sacrificed in that other instance, then stopped before it was done, but with Jephthah, the sacrifice is allowed to be done, with no objections from the lord.Artpholomule (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Artpholomule

Two omitted ancient European examples
Human sacrifice is doubtlessly a fearful, & therefore powerful, ritual. -- llywrch (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that there is no mention of -- or at least a link to -- devotio, a rare & ancient Roman practice.
 * If I remember Grimm's Germannic Mythology correctly, they document allusions to the old Germanic custom that, in order to guarantee a building would stand, one or more humans would be sacrificed & who would then be buried beneath the structure. (Since I can't provide a better cite than that, I'm simply mentioning it here for another editor to consider adding.)

Jeptha Account in Hebrew Bible is not a case of Human Sacrifice
The account of Jepthath returning from war and promising to offer the first person who comes out of his house is not a case that the person was sacrificed. The ancient Israelites could be devoted to Yahweh in exclusive service in connection with the sanctuary. One such child offered in this way was Samuel. His mother Hannah made such a vow before his birth. As soon as Samuel was weaned, Hannah offered him at the sanctuary. Along with him, Hannah brought an animal sacrifice. (1Sa 1:11, 22-28; 2:11) Samson was another child specially devoted to God’s service as a Nazirite. There is evidence for this conclusion in relation to Jepthaths daughter. In her case, when she was told of the vow her father had made, she agreed to abide by it and proceeded to 'weep for her virginity' Why would the account say she wept over her 'virginity' and not over her impending 'death'? Jg 11:37, 38 "And she went on to say to her father: “Let this thing be done to me: Let me alone for two months, and let me go, and I will descend upon the mountains, and let me weep over my virginity, I and my girl companions. 38 At this he said: “Go!” So he sent her away for two months; and she kept going, she with her girl companions, and weeping over her virginity upon the mountains"

The account ends by mentioning that she went up to the house of Yahweh/Jehovah and the daughter of Isreal would go up to her 'year to year and give commendation....you can't go and commend someone on a yearly basis if they are dead. Judges 11:39 ''And it came about at the end of two months that she made her return to her father, after which he carried out his vow that he had made toward her. As for her, she never had relations with a man. And it came to be a regulation in Israel: 40 From year to year the daughters of Israel would go to give commendation to the daughter of Jeph′thah the Gil′e·ad·ite, four days in the year''

So i think you need to remove this as an example of human sacrifice. Its clearly not a death sacrifice...its a life devoted to temple service and it misrepresents the facts about this account. The mosiac law did not permit human sacrifice...it specifically says at Deuteronomy 18:10 "There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer,..." Human sacrifice was forbidden. But a burnt offering was to be a 'ram' according to Leviticus 16:5-6

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.133.186 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We surely need some Hebrew bible expert here. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Evolution and Context
The sentence that I find both offensive, and repulsive in this article is the following:

"The story of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22) is an example of a myth explaining the abolition of human sacrifice."

I find it offensive for two reasons: a. The Word of God is not a "myth." b. The entire idea of the sentence that it explains the abolition of human sacrifice is entirely incorrect.

People who practice Judaism, and Christianity should be repulsed by the author calling God's Word a "myth." People who practice Islam should be repulsed by the article calling the story a "myth," thereby invalidating the Qu'ran. If one believes that the story of Abraham and Isaac was "a myth explaining the abolition of human sacrifice," then that insinuates that Abraham was practicing human sacrifice up to that point. Easeltine

Easeltine, you must understand that if Wikipedia were to treat the Abrahamic religions as not being myth, while treating Hinduism as myth, it would be a bias towards the Abrahamic religions. Wikipedia is not meant to biased in any way, especially not towards or against any religions.

I do agree with your second point, but not for the same reasons as you do. I see multiple human sacrifices in Abrahamic texts after this instance and so it could not therefore be the "abolition of human sacrifice" if afterwards there is more human sacrifice. Artpholomule (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Artpholomule

I find that there is no reason to dispute religions as myth on the basis of evolutionary thought. If so, then there is bias inherent in this entire article. It puts forth various religious beliefs as nothing more than developments in history that are easily refuted. There are hardly any citations in the entire article, which definitely seems loaded with bias and prejudice against religious beliefs.

Why i removed Sati and Thugee
Because the sources itself are not saying that it's actual "human sacrifice", 2nd thing, thuggee killed people, looted them, it's robbery and murder, not a "sacrifice", then in Sati, the woman would jump into pyre, for escaping from the invaders in fear of getting raped, which is clearly a suicide, not a human sacrifice. And once again, the given source for Sati is not talking about any "human sacrifice".

Maunus, I also object that how it's "Sourced information", is not saying anything about sacrifices.

One of the thuggee's line need source itself. Flooded false information with the non working links,,. So i would revert, since it has no point at all, from before. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The thugs viewed their killings as an aspect of their devotion to Kali, a Hindu goddess associated with violence, sexuality and, in more recent interpretations, feminine empowerment."


 * "In a case of suspected "human sacrifice", the blood-splattered beheaded torso of a 25-year-old man was found outside a temple of Goddess Kali this morning at a village about 15 km away from Bolpur town in Birbhum district."


 * Burning Women: A Global History of Widow Sacrifice from Ancient Times to the Present Tobby72 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ""In a case of suspected "human sacrifice", the blood-splattered beheaded torso of a 25-year-old man was found outside a temple of Goddess " is already there in "India" section, your link uses the word "sacrifice" only once, and it's the headline, no where it describes that it's any type of sacrifice. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Compared with the sources you used to accuse Islam of endorsing human sacrifice these sources are a whole lot better. You seem to be applying a severe double standard. Human sacrifice as a part of Kali worship is extremnely well documented and mentioned in a number of introductions to hinduism as well as to Human sacrifice. Whether Sati is correctly called human sacrifice is somewhat more controversial but it is not an uncommon point of view that it is - for example the reason it was banned was due to efforts by the "society against human sacrifice".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems incoherent to the subject. Because all of your sources are only saying that human sacrifice is related to a Goddess in some sense, but it should be noted that all of these activities are 100% banned by the same scriptures for the current age(3102 BC - now). As for the proven sacrifices, they are listed at "india", which is enough, sacrifices that actually took place. Again, Sati is just a suicide, nothing more than that. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is 'banned by scripture' relative? Murder and war are banned by many scriptures, but they happend. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, since these practices aren't supported by the scriptures or any religious evidence(of hinduism) thus they are limited with just "incidence", that's why the incidences are added into "India" section. Same with others, such as bangladesh, UK, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. The sources state unequivoically that human sacrifice has been a part of Hindu religious practice in the past.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense, that you are reverting to the same unsourced nonsense. Which has to do nothing with Hinduism certainly, and you are only posing the dead links as facts, that doesn't even support even the word "human sacrifice" or "sacrifice", Since this subject is largely associated with India, Hinduism, I ask Ugog Nizdast, Jethwarp, Abecedare, Sitush, Utcursch to participate. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not getting why no one else is making a opinion about this one right now, ok, once again, sati is just a suicide, and Thuggee(s) were murderer, looter.. Nothing more, plus there are no sources that would back them as a identity of human sacrifice. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a large body of literature discussing whether Sati is in fact a voluntary act. Your statement that it was simply suicide means nothing. As for thuggees there is ample documentation that their murders was partly ritual.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again and again.. No sources says so, 2nd thing Thuggee(s) sacrificed(actually murdered) only those who they would loot, sacrifice is more like, one who is ready to die in order to gain something(in their own belief), not forcible killing, as per the description on lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * More nonsense. Sacrifice can be voluntary or forced, what makes it a sacrifice is the ritual and religious element. The lead says nothing about this. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that anyone who kills someone, and then calls it "i sacrificed him", is a human sacrifice? There are surely some basis. In fact, thugee(s) or Sati are not regarded as Human sacrifice, so why are we assuming them as Human sacrifice? Another deletion may take place.. of following content :-

"The Deori community has a notable culture and tradition which is a hidden treasure for the sociologists. The Deoris represent the class “priest”-a section of the whole Chutia community (now in Assam, India). In the first two decades of the 13th century, before the arrival of the Ahom, Deoris used to make a Narbali (human sacrifice) in terms to win the war, battle and to prevent the villagers from the evil atmosphere like floods, drought etc. This practice make them pure owing to satisfy the supreme Goddess. Only the class of Patorganya people were eligible for sacrificing."...
 * Well, these people sacrificed animals(not humans), and they given up sacrificing animals by 18th Century too. The given link is a primary source, with only a main page, not even enough for alleging human sacrifice. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

( Comment from uninvolved editor ) Is the issue about "See also: Sati"? What are the sources for it being sacrifice?Roguetech (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No sources. It has been removed by other user already. But now we have two issues..


 * Thuggee - Theives, murderers. Not human sacrifice.
 * Deori community - Sacrificed animals, not humans.

Bladesmulti (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Blood sacrifice of the Slavic Peoples
I am adding this here for discussion as it was removed from the main article. The below is from the Slavic mythology page for festivals (Calendar of festivals in Slavic paganism), in addition to the information for human sacrifices that is present in this Human sacrifice main article page (See Human Sacrifices of the Slavic People).

In the Human Sacrifices of the Slavic People article for the Slavic People is states:


 * Sixth century Byzantine emperor Mauricius's Strategikon wrote of the Slavs: "They don't hold their prisoners indefinitely, like other people, but, limiting their time as prisoners, offer them a choice: either to ransom their way back to home or to stay where they are, as free man and friends." In the 10th century, Persian explorer Ahmad ibn Rustah described funerary rights for the Rus including the sacrifice of a young female slave. Leo the Deacon describes prisoner sacrifice by the Rus led by Sviatoslav during the Russo-Byzantine War "in accordance with their ancestral custom." According to the 12th-century Russian Primary Chronicle, prisoners of war were sacrificed to the supreme Slavic deity Perun. Sacrifices to pagan gods, along with paganism itself, were banned after the Baptism of Rus by Prince Vladimir I in the 980s. Archeological findings indicate that the practice may have been widespread, at least among slaves, judging from mass graves containing the cremated fragments of a number of different people.

In the Calendar of festivals in Slavic paganism section of Slavic mythology it states:


 * In the middle of summer, there was a festival associated with thunder-god Perun, in post-Christian times transformed into a very important festival of Saint Elijah. It was considered the holiest time of the year, and there are some indications from historic sources that it involved human sacrifices. The harvest probably began afterwards.

In the interests of differing opinions, I add the below to the information and references present in Human Sacrifices of the Slavic People and Calendar of festivals in Slavic paganism which is currently supportive of the theory of blood sacrifices of the Slavic peoples:


 * This theory of a blood sacrifice of the Slavic people is claimed to have been debunked by Волхва Богумила Мурина (Volhv Bogumil Murin) in his 2011 book, 'Кровавые жертвоприношения у славян: Разоблачение мифа' (Bloody Sacrifices of the Slavs: Debunking the Myth)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed this from Slavic neopaganism simply because it would need sources discussing Slavic neopaganism, which it doesn't have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I have that page on my watchlist too. Just saw, but this information seems to be relevant for this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What say on the wars?--190.118.40.128 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ritual execution
Ritual killing redirects here, so what about unusual (and horrible) forms of execution for unusual (and horrible) crimes? I'm thinking in particular of hanging, drawing, and quartering for treason and the gruesome sentence for convicted patricides in ancient Rome. These, and doubtless others I haven't thought of, go far beyond simple termination of a person's earthly existence -- if that's the sole aim, hanging someone is quicker and cleaner than disemboweling him and chopping his corpse into quarters -- and do so for some specific reason. 71.248.115.187 (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-druids-sacrifice-cannibalism_2.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Evolution and Origin
It states that Jeptha offered his daughter as a sacrifice. If you read the scriptures you will see he clearly didn't sacrifice her he said he would offer the first person who greater him to be a worker in the temple. His daughter agreed and she went to work at the temple. The sacrifice he made was giving his daughter away and she gave her life in service to God. No one died!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbird1050 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Jephthah was distraught when he discovered it was his daughter, as was she. She also mentions that the sacrifice would prevent her from being married, and they did not have celibate nuns then, everyone got married as soon as possible.  Also, she did die.  The idea that she was consecrated to the temple and not sacrifice appears to be early modern interpretational censorship.  But, we settle things with academic secondary and tertiary sources on Wikipedia.
 * Eerdmans' Dictionary of the Bible, which would be biased against the human sacrifice interpretation, can only say "Whether Jephthah intended human sacrifice is unclear."
 * King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice by Francesca Stavrakopoulou (publ. Walter de Gruyter), discusses Jepthah's daughter in parallel to Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac.
 * Fathers and Daughters in the Hebrew Bible by Johanna Stiebert (publ. Oxford UP) follows suit in comparing the sacrifice with the near-sacrifice of Isaac.
 * Social Meanings of Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible by David Janzen (publ. Walter de Gruyter), explicitly discusses Jephthah's sacrifice in the context of human sacrifice.
 * I will be adding these sources to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant quotation
What on Earth does Mauricius's comment about the Slavs have to do with human sacrifice? This is the quote: "They don't hold their prisoners indefinitely, like other people, but, limiting their time as prisoners, offer them a choice: either to ransom their way back to home or to stay where they are, as free man and friends." Anyone reading this would expect it to read "... either to ransom their way back to home or to have their throats slit on the altar of Hagar the Horrible." Would it be OK to make this change to improve the quote's relevance and interest? Who knows or cares about Mauricius anyway? 24.121.127.50 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Human sacrifice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090918085258/http://www.post-gazette.com:80/pg/05146/510878.stm to http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05146/510878.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Quran on human sacrifices
In the section for Islam, the verses quoted from the Quran (surah 17 ayah 31 & surah 6 ayah 140) do not appear to be referring to human sacrifices. They mention killing of people, but I see no sacrificial indications. Infact the first (surah 17 ayah 31) is clearly talking about killing children out of fear of poverty: "And do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Indeed, their killing is ever a great sin." (Note it also doesn't say "grave error"). http://quran.com/17/31 Yaakovaryeh (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Christianity and "human sacrifice"
The part on christianity should be changed. First of all, christians don't belive Isaac's binding were a foreshadowing of the Jesus' sacrifice. That's something completely different. Christians belive Jesus is GOD in the flesh, meaning he is GOD in physical form. GOD has three forms, the holy spirit, Jesus (GOD in the physical form) and GOD in heaven. Jesus were GOD in fully human form. GOD created man and all things, but man sinned. They were not fully good, as He. GOD therefore sent his son, Jesus (GOD becomes a physical being), and attones for all men's sins (because He made all men, and He took their blame upon himself and suffered for them [it would be evil to accept the regretting sinfull, if he himself had not felt what victims have to feel]. Since he made them. If men only accept Him as their savior, they can be with GOD in heaven).

Here in this article, it just seems like Jesus death and resurection were a form of human sacrifice, devoid of any logic. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be mistaking your own belief with what Christians believe. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No this is Christian doctrin. Visit a church. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources which can be biased regarding pagan religions by Christian authors
The mention of sacrifices among Germanic,Celtic,Slavic,Native American etc can be biased especially those written by Christians.Probably the information given by Christians because Chrsitians viewed pagans as "barbarians". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeluser (talk • contribs) 09:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Human sacrifice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303174603/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26349.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26349.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506113520/http://www.exn.ca/mummies/story.asp?id=1999041452 to http://www.exn.ca/mummies/story.asp?id=1999041452

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The use of the word "victim"
Is the word "victim" appropriate in the context of human sacrifices? Isn't it too emotional and eurocentric? Does anthropology make value judgements? Why should Wikipedia?--Adûnâi (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)